Question: Is a Two-State Resolution Deemed a Viable Answer to the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute?

Israel's actions in Gaza are not justified under international law. According to the UN Partition Plan of 1947, which established the modern Jewish state, territories were allocated to both Palestine and Israel, excluding Jordan and Egypt. The Jews were granted all but Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, which were designated for the Palestinians. However, in the 1967 war, Israel unlawfully seized Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. Regardless of who initiated the war, it is universally recognized under international law that no state can acquire territory as a result of war. As stated by Ehud Barak's former foreign minister, Abba Eban, and author of "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace," "It is inadmissible to acquire territory as a result of war; Israel acquired Gaza, the W.Bank, and Jerusalem as a result of war; therefore, it is inadmissible to keep them." This is the fundamental principle of international law. Israel's current occupation of these territories is illegal. The Palestinians, including under Hamas, have consistently recognized and respected the two-state solution, allowing Israel to remain a state of the Jewish people. There have been numerous instances where the Palestinians, regardless of their leadership, acknowledged the two-state solution, only for Israel to reject it. For example, since the mid-1970s, there has been an international consensus for a two-state settlement, with Israel fully withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza and recognizing the Palestinians' right to self-determination in these territories with Jerusalem as their capital. However, Israel has been opposed to a full withdrawal and the creation of a Palestinian state. In 1981, as pressure mounted on Israel to reach a diplomatic settlement, they invaded Lebanon to crush the P.L.O., which supported a two-state settlement. Avner Yaniv, in his book "Dilemmas of Security," stated that Israel's main problem was "the P.L.O.'s peace offensive. They wanted a two-state settlement. Israel did not." Israel's invasion of Lebanon successfully crushed the P.L.O. and sent them into exile. The Palestinians have made significant concessions, such as dividing Jerusalem roughly in half and conceding 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, going beyond what was demanded of them under international law. However, Israel has not abided by these rulings and has continued its illegal construction of settlements, even during negotiations. The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against occupation, which has been

I'm glad we can see eye to eye about an honest discussion free from coercion and the decision to show us other cultures. My respect for you is immense. May the best man win! First though I must protest that Pro actually told a blatant lie to the audience, and this should be corrected. Islam DOES mean submission, we agree. However, he claims that it is derived from the word Salam meaning peace. This is NOT THE CASE. Islam is from the word 'al-silm' which literally means submission. If it were true that Islam also meant peace and security al-silm and al-salam would be the same word. This is not the case thus we can conclude through logic Islam only means submission. Furthermore, one Muslim scholar even says "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law. " - Ibrahim Sulaiman. So either Pro is lying or misguided, in either case it really does not matter as not all scholars agree that through SUBMISSION will peace come. Therefore in order for peace to ensue everyone must become a Muslim through force and indicates that it is NOT a religion of peace. . http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... Second I must again protest the claim that Muslims may be irresponsible but not Islam. This is a fallacy at best. Again, the Islamic world seeks to put Salam Rushdie to death (something I have noticed he has NOT refuted directly at all but instead plays linguistic games). The source above indicate that even the slightest indication of the prophet Muhammad may result in a militant response not only by the people of any Islamic country, but their leaders as well. He never refutes this. Also I ask of this: Name one country that is an Islamic state that has a higher quality of life than that of North America (whichever is the lesser) by that of a third party organization (i. e. Reporters without borders). North America isn't even number 1, yet no Islamic state will defeat them because Islam is not a nation of peace. They are riddled with crime, lack a middle class due to severe punishments, and on top of that are in a consistent state of war. Even the Shiite and Sunni Muslims persecute one another. I again ask you; what religion is peaceful that suppresses freedom of speech, and even persecutes their own members? Even worse in the article below done by a member of Islam, a man murdered his wife simply for denying him sex. The person showing the article even makes a mention that 'praise this pious person for upholding Islamic values'. So if Muslims cannot be held responsible for Islam, then Islam must be the problem, otherwise why would such an individual do such a thing? Why don't Buddhists kill then as well? . http://thechroniclesofislam.blogspot.ca... Third: This will further my point later in this debate. I shall not touch this for now. Fourth: still does not account for Rushdie. Even if it did you only further my point that Islam is a violent religion; as Rushdie fears for his life for creating a character in the Satanic Verses Controversy that was close to Muhammad. Therefore if a fatwa is a legal opinion binding on the scholar that looks terrible upon the religion as a whole. Under Islam here is the long list of apologies this kind sir would have to make before claiming they are a religion of peace: Discrimination against Women (female gender mutilations, Sharia law requiring the Burka, 'justified' domestic disputes) Discrimination against Shiites Bombings and death threats after the Norwegian Muhammad controversy (not even in Norway these people were blowing up their own homes in the Middle East out of anger! ) Discrimination against the Jews and Children due to Muhammad marrying a 9 year old (in which she would lead several campaigns after Muhammad died to spread Islam . .. again making it not peaceful! ) Again I ask: what is the penalty for apostasy in Islam? What would happen to me in the Middle East if we were to have this debate? And why does the Qu'ran justify slapping a woman when a man even fears -just a little suspicion by her tone of voice for example- her 'highhandedness' according to the Qu'ran? How many campaigns had Muhammad led? I turn it over to Pro

First: Before any other evaluation of the resolution we must evaluate the effects on human ontology that the resolution has. Campbell: Campbell & Shapiro 99 (Michael, and Campbell, professor of International Relations at the University of Lancaster, Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, p. 97-8) google books “the relevance of ontology to all other kinds of thinking is fundamental and inescapable. For one cannot say anything about anything that is, without always already having made assumptions about the is. Any mode of thought, always already carries an ontology sequested within it. What this ontological turn does to other- regional – modes of thought is to challenge the ontology within which they operate. The implications of that review demand[s] a reappraisal as fundamental as the reappraisal ontology has demanded of philosophy.” I negate, negate is defined by Encarta World English Dictionary: as to deny the truth of something, or prove something to be false. Thus my burden as the negative is to only disprove the affirmative. The thesis of the negative case is that acting on the basis of minimizing suffering is wrong because suffering is needed in order to understand human fatality of the ontological mode of being. Long explains the way humans exist: Suffering and Transcendence Eugene Thomas Long International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Vol. 60, No. 1/3, Self and Other: Essays in Continental Philosophy of Religion (Dec., 2006), pp. 139-148 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org... “we exist in the future that is coming towards us. Our being is such that in the present we recollect the past and anticipate the future. Our transcending or becoming, however, comes up against many boundaries along the way which set limits to our transcending or becoming. Suffering stands over against our transcending, our acting the process of becoming in which we act to realize some state of affairs that we desire and through which we find meaning in existence, the experience of suffering appears to be the opposite of activity. Suffering may bring us up against our finiteness and suffering may be accommodated into our human becoming. for example, that although we would not have sought suffering we are better persons for having undergone the experience of suffering.” Thus, the way in which humans exist is through the experience of suffering in order to know the distinction between gods and humans. This allows for human becoming and transcendence to happen. Long 2 explains why suffering is needed: “suffering is necessary to a greater good or that it will be transformed or overcome in the future by a greater good. persons are called not only to condemn such evil and suffer with those who suffer, but assume responsibility for working for new possibilities for good. Human suffering on this account is at one and the same time an experience of emptiness or nullity and the giving or loving of Being, the on-going creative activity or providence of divine reality. In this giving of Being in reaction to the suffering of beings in the world” Thus suffering allows prospering over future problems; the on-going creative activity of the divine reality, which allows people to come to their fullest being This proves that suffering is a necessary part of human existence in order to find solidarity with others and confront our finiteness as human beings. The suffering of others calls us to question who we are what actions we take as human meaning that it is necessary to understand the true function of being a human. This argument functions as an apriori because it disproves the assumptions the affirmative framework is founded upon. Additionally, confronting notions of death and suffering is how individuals conceptualize good and bad and this confrontation is the only reason why life has value Strauss: Jonathan Strauss. “After Death.” Diacritics. 30.3 (2000) 90-104. “Dasein is the term to speak of individual human consciousness, and is Unique among entities in that it puts Being itself- Death, in turn, puts the whole of Dasein's own being at stake. In part, this is because death is "nonrelational," which is to say that no one else can represent me or stand in for me at my inevitable demise. dying is something that I must do for myself. I am therefore alone in the face of my death, and that mortal isolation informs me of my separation from others, makes me aware of my finitude in relation to them. The non-relational character of death, as understood in anticipation, individualizes Dasein down to itself.” Me capable of being a whole to myself, and I actually do become whole to myself through my attitude toward that death. it is that a privative limit can structure experience into subjectivity and existence into a life. One's relation to death is either authentic or inauthentic, In the latter case a person tries to forget that he is finite and must die by imagining that he is the same as the indeterminate They authentic" Anticipation turns out to be the possibility of understanding one's own most and utter most potentiality-for- Being-that is to say, the possibility of authentic existence. The ontological constitution of such existence must be made visible by setting forth the concrete structure of anticipation of death" The structure of our relation to death makes our authentic individual existence apparent to us as a whole, and it is, consequently, through anticipating death that we authentically exist as whole individuals.” Thus it is necessary to confront death in order to find meaning in life. Also, I do not advocate that we advance suffering, but let the suffering in the world flow naturally and avoid trying to minimize it so any arguments about me justifying another holocaust or promoting extinction won’t link. Further, suffering is not something with a brightline i.e we have never undergone enough suffering, it is always static because if it weren’t then we would slowly be able to lose the ability to suffer which doesn’t make sense because even people who have suffered through insane torture or crazy diseases will always have the ability to suffer more And, they are going to stand up and say they know what it is like to suffer just by watching other people suffering however this is false for two reasons A) The warrants in long assume that it is the experience of suffering that calls into question what it means to be and to find meaning in existence and B) The warrants in strauss are clear on the fact that it is the confrontation of death that only I can do for myself and it helps me realize my finitude in relation with others which would function just by watching someone confront death because that would only increase the false idea that we are in some relation to others. This has 2 impacts on the round 1.) I am proving the resolution false 2.) This turns the AC because their notions of trying to reduce suffering only harm human ontology Next, presume neg because a statement has a higher chance of being false than true for example if I have a pink pen then it is only true to say that it is pink however you can make several false statements about he pen i.e. it is blue black or orange. So let me clarify on exactly what my case implicates. My opponent is arguing through her two contentions as well as her criterion of de facto utilitarianism that we should adopt rehab over retribution because it lowers crimes rates and saves people money, all of which reduces the total amount of suffering we can experience. That's all bad for the reasons listed in Long, Long 2 and Strauss. Therefore, you reject the aff case and vote neg. Don't let her try to delink from the harms of the neg case because that would mean that you end up defaulting neg under her framework. If she isn't arguing that adopting rehab would offer some sort of benefits then there's no reason to adopt it under her framework of "cost-benefit analysis", meaning that she doesn't have any kind of offense she can extend out that fulfills her framework and you default neg anyway. So, to summarize:- She's arguing that rehab offers x and y benefits that reduce suffering and bring about all these different benefits.- I'm saying that we shouldn't be trying to reduce suffering, but rather keep things at the current level and avoid deviation, therefore you reject her cas apriori.- If she isn't arguing that rehab has those benefits, then she isn't fulfilling her framework via cost-benefit analysis, therefore has no actual offense to win the debate.

I will argue that America should take a role in Israeli-Iranian negotiations, not necessarily a central role, but a role nonetheless. I will first address the Pro's arguments then introduce my own. I apologize for taking so long, my life has been pretty hectic lately. 1) Israel was artificially created, but when Israel was created Palestinians were perfectly fine with it, and for a short period of time the two got along splendidly. But the Zionist movement caused problems, along with claims over the holy city of Jerusalem, territory lines, and displacement of Palestinians. Then in 1947 numerous predominantly Arab countries began acting hostile towards Israel, and war broke out very quickly. Israel though kicked plenty of a** and soon began to occupy territory originally designated for Palestine and its inhabitants. Over time though Israel still controls these lands, displacing people, and wars broke out numerous times. Israel was established with backing from Palestine, it was only until a clusterf*ck of activities did such turmoil engulf both sides, and both sides did play a part in the current state of affairs today. So where does Iran come into play? see the next argument. http://usforeignpolicy.about.com... 2) Israels conception was a little controversial to begin with, and the actions of both Israel and surrounding countries has been nothing less than problematic, but how does Iran fit into this equation? Iran has recently emerged to become one of the biggest threats to destabilize relations in the Middle East right now. Threats to blockade the Straight of Hormuz and the possibility of ending Israel's nuclear monopoly over the region have caused a lot of worry for everyone over how much longer the temporary peace in the Middle East will last.... While its true that most people from the Middle East that hate us do so because of our support for Israel, Peace in the Middle East doesnt just affect the US or just Israel, it affects most of the world. Because the Middle East plays a large part in global economics regarding oil and natural gas exports, stuff that the world needs lots of, and at cheap prices too, peace in the Middle east is essential to allowing nations to have stable economies that are built partially off of foreign imports of such energy resources. The reason that the US plays such a large role in these issues is because 1) we are already in the region due to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and our alliance with Israel, and 2) The US has deep ties to Israel because for decades Israel was the window into the Middle East for information to the US. After 9/11 more attention was focused on the Middle East, and naturally the US only had one real ally in the region to support them, Israel. Recently though the US has been on friendlier ground with other nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, nations the US gave protection to against Saddam back in the 1990's. The US has always been a part of issues in the Middle East, and that is still true to this day. American intervention into the Middle East has helped identify and wage war against terrorists, dictators, enemies, and others who were not just a threat to the US or Israel, but to the world or even their fellow countrymen. Iran though, Iran has hated us for a long time and they have had a good reason to. The Us has a very colorful history of giving chemical weapons to Iran to fight Iran in the 1990's war those two had, the US also had previously installed a puppet government in Iran that was overthrown in 1979. The US has also had its share of issues with Iran that ended badly, particularly a couple of coups, a hostage crises, embargoes, axis of evil thing, etc. Iran hates US for a long list of reasons, many of which are understandably justified. However the US still plays an active role in the Middle East, The US has always played a hand in trying to establish peace, and the US is currently the go to player for trying to keep the region in peace and not break out into possibly nuclear war. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://usforeignpolicy.about.com... 3) Both sides are arguably wrong. Israel has ticked off its neighbors with some rocket attacks and settlements in areas they shouldnt be settling in here and there, Iran has its share of not abiding by UN protocols too. However just because both sides are wrong that doesnt mean we should turn our backs on both of them and pretend that whatever happens doesnt affect us because whatever happens WILL affect us, along with many other countries too. The factthat Iran may be going nuclear though and threaten up to 20% of the worlds oil supplies makes the Middle East a very important issue to be handled, and the US has had a larger and longer presence there than anyone else so it is unfortunately up to the US to handle such relations. I personally dont like it, and neither do many other people, but at this point for the sake of the world the US should continue to mediate between the two nations about to ignite a powder keg, because if we turn our backs on them they could go to war, and that would be and for all of us

Premise I: Financial SacrificeThe US contributes $3.15 bn a year to Israeli Defense (1). This may seem like a lot, but it's very cheap for the US. That makes up only 0.0008% of total US Spending (2). The benefit of removing that money from Israel must outweigh the negative effects.1) http://www.businessinsider.com...2) http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... Argument I: Benefits v NegativesIt's not a question of how much the Arab nations hate Israel. Palestine especially. Numerous nations have threatened Israel, like Iran. These nations have the backing of groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda, who recently conquered an entire Iraqi city of 325,000+ people (3). This becomes a major issue for a nation like Israel, where the West Bank and Gaze Strip bulge into Israel. A quick look at the city of Jerusalem should give us insight.It's a sensitive situation in Jerusalem, and wars between Arab nations are not known their emphasizes on preserving civilian life. To allow an opening for war would be a disaster. The US being so involved is what prevents such an issue. If Hamas got the chance at Jerusalem, an easy target, 511,000 Jewish/Christian citizens would be at risk (4). There is a total population of 8,000,000+ in Israel, 6,062,600+ of whom are Islamic and Christian. Putting them at risk to save 0.0008% of our budget which be a crime against reason and humanity.3) http://news.yahoo.com...4) http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'll let my arguments speak for themselves. Here is what I think the audience needs to consider, or I found criteria in voting....(1) Did Mikal make clear that the topic (Title), or resolution in DDO's case, was clear, non misleading, and anti semantic ?(2) Did Mikal use proper grammar,spelling, and sentence structure?(3) Did Mikal source his contentions, prove that they are true, or make it clear that it was flat logic?(4) Did Mikal fill his half of the BOP, that American culture did not delude freedom?I want to keep this debate civil, so that's all I'll say. I don't think these closing rounds offer any insight, besides rhetorical bashing on your opponents arguments. Good luck

Rules: 1) Since I am Con, I do not have to prove that Israel will get nuked. I can if I want to, but the burden of proof is on Pro. 2) No spamming, trolling, flaming etc. 3) No off-topic. Definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com...): Nuclear attack: Israel: a republic in SW Asia, on the Mediterranean: formed as a Jewish state May 1948. 5,534,672; 7984 sq. mi. (20,679 sq. km). Capital: Jerusalem. Since I feel like it, I will present evidence to prove that Israel will experience a nuclear attack. As we all know, Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Now, the president whatever of Iran has said that: **"Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives."**, "Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added. (http://www.ynetnews.com...) Some people say that because of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Iran cannot do anything. They are wrong because: 1) Russia is an ally of Iran. Should USA or Israel nuke/invade Iran, Russia would be there to protect them or to nuke back Israel/USA. 2) Barack Obama, the president of the US, does not give a poop about Israel. So, Iran has publicly said that it wants to destroy Isreal and America. Okay. Now, let's add to that the fact that Iran is going to have its first nuclear weapon in a year or two. We have a country who wants to destroy Israel (and USA) and *will have nuclear weapons soon*. What is USA doing? Of course, every rational being would think that America would destroy the nuclear reactors in Iran. Nope. Today, President Barack Obama said (not exact words), "Why hate, let's be friends. We want to negotiate and establish a friendship." Israel ain't doing anything, either. Especially not after the elections, when the president of Israel is a pacifist. Let's summarize. 1. Iran (plus terrorists and other countries) want to annihilate Isreal from the surface of the Earth. 2. Iran will have fully functional nuclear missiles within a year or two. 3. Neither the USA nor Israel are doing anything. C1: Iran wants to burn Israel to the ground and will soon have nuclear missiles, therefore being capable of achieving their goal. No-one is doing a thing to prevent this, instead, Russia is an ally of Iran. I'd like to end with a quote from Mahmudjhin... the Iranian guy. "Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world." This conquest is about to begin.

[quote]All of this is conjecture, not backed up by evidence, yet presented by my opponent as fact.[/quote] I have presented a ton of evidence, whether or not you choose to accept it is a different thing. [quote]"If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest."[/quote] This is a different source. [quote]My examples of US aggression remain unchallenged, all my opponent has been able to say is that now there is a new president none of this matters.[/quote] It matters, because Barack Obama wants to establish a friendship with Iran, contrary to Bush. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) [quote]I would like to point out that the most holy of these sites Jerusalem is in fact the capital and most important city in Israel. Also my point was that they would not want to contaminate these sites with the radioactive fall out of a nuclear attack (which would of course last much longer than a year)[/quote] In seven hours (7 h) the radioactive radiation decreases from 1000 R to 10 R. In two months there are *very* small traces of nuclear radiation, not threatening anything. And still, radiation does not affect buildings. Also, there are other towns in Israel than Jerusalem ;) [quote]'"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.'[/quote] Then where was Obama during the conflict of Gaza? He NEVER said he supported Israel's actions. He just hid in the corner and shut his mouth. ***Actions speak louder than words.*** Also, the writer of this article is clearly biased [quote]2. 1. I said evidence not just more unsubstantiated claims. 2. I have offered several reasons why they would not (fear of reprisal and Islamic holy sites being the main ones) They want an end to the state of Israel in its current form, not to destroy the land and all it's inhabitants. 3. I watched the video carefully and as I have already pointed out it offers no evidence or even direct allegations. It is a business deal not a military alliance. 4. We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat. 5. some evidence of my own to the contrary:[/quote] 1. The chief of IAEA said that Iran could have nukes in six months. (http://blog.wired.com...) EU: http://www.upi.com... USA: U.S. officials have said repeatedly they believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. (http://www.time.com...) 2. And I gave some reasons why they would leave the holy cites alone and nuke the cites e. 3. "...The Iranian president gained a powerful *ALLY*." [quote](1) How is it obvious?, you have clearly made up your own mind, but don't expect me to agree without seeing any evidence.[/quote] Look at the three links I provided. (http://blog.wired.com...) (http://www.upi.com...) (http://www.time.com...) [quote]Please direct me to a quotation of his where he states such an intention [please not the same non-quote again][/quote] If you don't accept evidence, there is little point in debating. "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives." [quote](3) CNN is US, financed by republicans and clearly biased.[/quote] FOX is financed by Republicans. CNN is quite liberal, actually. And still, they did not make up Vladimir Putin's statement nor the visit he paid to Iran. [quote]We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat.[/quote] It's kind of the same as: Actual quote: "We will nuke wicked and zionist country X who has been a disgrace to God." Quoted: "We will nuke country X." It's the SAME meaning. Okay, fine. "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives." [quote]Does not make sense.[/quote] Okay. Number 1 is claimed by IAEA (unbiased), USA (slightly biased), and UN (unbiased). Number 2 is claimed by the Iranian President (non-US biased, non Israel-biased). Number 3 is claimed by Vladimir Putin and the Iranian president. Number 4 is claimed by the Iranian president. Number 5 is claimed by Barack Obama's actions. Therefore, number 6 is fulfilled. So, accompanied with the threat of Iran ***is the threat of TERRORISM.*** when Iran gets done with its nukes, they can simply give one of them to a terrorist group and have them detonate it in the middle of a large town. How? They could rent a truck and position the nuclear weapon inside it. It can never be traced back to Iran. Why? Well, if an object has been detonated to a trillion pieces, I imagine it may be a little tricky to find out who made it. Vote for either one of us, although I wish I could get your vote ;)

Hi there,I just noticed your current ongoing debate about "Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel".I was struck by two things. Firstly how civil it was considering the topic which is always a joy when it so often turns nasty and secondly how, despite the fact that I agree his point of view IRL, I don't think OsamatheCityzen put his points as well as he could have done and I'd like a chance to be able to put forward my views on this contentious topic in the open and hospitable manner I saw in the last thread.For that reason I've issued this closed challenge.Would you like to have a repeat of it with me?

The United States of America was, without a doubt, the biggest advocate for human's rights and freedom. It was freedom and justice that had distinguished our country from so many others, and it was freedom and justice that caused us to intervene in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even supporting the nation state of Israel after the second World War. Ladies and Gentlemen, I say this all using past tense to tell you all about the severe lack of american global leadership when it comes to the situation in Israel. Now, I will admit Israel is one of our closest allies, but when 3 billion dollars of US taxpayer money is being sent annually to assist in genocide; we have to see this money cut immediately. Friends, Israelis and the jewish people understand genocide, racial discrimination, and suffering better than anyone in the world. It's the Jewish state itself that stands today as a beacon of hope and light for the oppressed and discriminated. Or so we thought. The truth is, that while Israelis ought to be the most empathetic to people suffering under discrimination, they aren't. Israelis have become the fourth reich. Israel has passed laws making it so that Palestinians can't ride the same buses as Israelis. This sounds a lot like the Jim Crow era in the US, where things were "separate and equal". So, where's Rosa Parks in Israel? Well, she's probably being shot. The number of innocent Palestinian women and children killed as compared to Israelis is around a ratio of 3 to 1. Furthermore, http://www.theguardian.com... Look at that, Israelis know absolutely no limits. Ariel Sharon, the knight in shining armor, former prime minister, etc, even killed over 100 innocent Palestinian civillians during the war with Lebanon, for NO REASON. There are also settlements being built all around the Golan Heights, gaza Strip, and west bank. Folks, If I came to your house where your family and their family and their family lived and told you to get out, you wouldn't go quietly would you? Then if I kicked you out by force and delegated a shed in the backyard to your family, then proceeded to kick you out of there, Just how would you feel? Lets say I killed your dog in the process of moving, would you stand quietly? Probably not, and its the plight that thousands of palestinians have had to face. Furthermore, when settlements are built soldiers are shown to kill innocent Palestinians for no reason. Key word here guys is NO REASON. Palestinians are people. Palestinians are human beings. Palestinians are being killed off slowly. Zionist Leaders have even publically stated that Israel's job is to check Palestinian growth. This slow but consistant genocide will lead to further complications down the road for the US. Our money has a tag, it says we support you.Our money is going into the hands of genocidal monsters, who are just like the whites in south africa under apartheid, and are just like we were during the early 1900s. We can stop this. We can take away the 21% of money that we give to their defense budget. We can stop the genocide, lead the world in an effort to promote freedom. We can inspire change, and be the change once more. America has lost its touch when it comes to global leadership and advocacy for democracy and freedom. But let's regain it, and start by cutting funding to Israel.

I'm going to have to concede on this one. I just don't have enough information to counter the resolution.


Question: Is a Two-State Resolution Considered a Viable Answer to the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute?

Israel's actions in Gaza are justified due to the historical context and the Palestinians' stance on a two-state solution.

Let's put aside the idea of Jordan and Egypt for a moment. It's easy to ignore facts, but they are indeed stubborn things. The reality is that from 1948 to 1967, there was no significant call for Palestinian statehood. It was only when Israel took control that Palestinian statehood became a major priority and "legitimate resistance" was invoked. It's peculiar that when Israel gains territory, it's the only time that territory cannot be acquired through war, a principle that has never been applied elsewhere.

Your claim that the Palestinians have always wanted a two-state solution is both laughable and incorrect. The PLO was founded in 1964, before 1967, with the explicit goal of acquiring all of British Mandate Palestine for the Palestinian people. It wasn't until 1988 that the PLO adopted the policy of a two-state solution by recognizing the State of Israel and officially renouncing violence.

Israel is currently attempting to give the Palestinians a country, as it has been demonstrating for the past two decades. The Palestinians have never had their own country in history, and Israel is trying to change that. The only requirement from the Palestinians is to show that they will not seek Israel's destruction. This is not achieved through terrorist attacks, rocket launches, the election of groups that openly state their intention to destroy Israel, or leaders who adhere to charters that call for Israel's annihilation.

The concept of legitimate resistance becomes irrelevant when there is a peace process in place. The deal is straightforward: "You will get a country, just stop killing us." The Palestinians, regardless of their leadership, have never fully recognized the two-state solution, and Israel has never rejected it.

Regarding settlements, there is no "transfer of population." In 1967, Israel acquired land in a war it did not initiate, roughly tripling its size. In the 42 years since then, out of a population of 6 million, only 250,000 people, about 4% of the population, have moved into this vast area. This demonstrates that there is no policy of transfer. Currently, there is no more land for new Israeli towns, and the settlements that exist can be removed, as was shown in Gaza.

The fact that only a small percentage of the population has moved across an invisible line when land is scarce

True, this is actually a good statement, but don't all disaster are either natural. Al-Qudia might be a strong terriosts, but how about other terroists?

The resolution is self explanatory. I plan to defeat any arguments that agree with this resolution with facts and logic.round 1-acceptanceround 2- positions ( no refutations)round 3-4 - refutationsround 5- summaries ( no new arguments/evidence/contentions rebuttals are allowed.)

Due to strict character limits my arguments will be brief. US: the United States of America Resolution The resolution states that Texas must be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation if it so chooses. By the word “must” I interpret this to indicate that the US has no justified right, or reason to deny the secession of Texas, and will proceed based on this interpretation. Rebuttals Pros round 1 argument can be summed up by saying that Texans are proud of their heritage, unhappy with US decision making, and would be better off if they seceded. However this argument is inconsistent with his resolution. By stating that “Texas must be allowed…”, and that “the US must recognize Texas sovereignty…” , the debate is clearly about decisions that should be made by the US. On that note Pro has not yet made any case for the resolution other then emotional sentiment, which does not take into account the criteria from which the US should base its decision. Counter Argument: 1. The US has legal authority to deny secession Contrary to popular myth, Texas does not have any legal right to secede from the US. There are no articles in the Texas constitution stating such language, and in fact it only demonstrates that the Texas constitution is subordinate to the US constitution(1): “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States” In addition, the US constitution places restrictions on the rights of states to do many things such as coin money, enter into any treaty, emit bills of credit, etc…(2). These are all things that a state would need to be independent. Lastly, the Supreme Court also ruled against it in Texas v. White in 1869(3): “When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States”. 2. The US has justified reason to deny secession: Texas may have entered into the Union differently then any other state but its legal rights on the matter are no different. Without the states there is no United States. Allowing a state to secede sets a dangerous precedent that any state can secede if it so chooses. Aside from being a major distraction, this could have disastrous consequences. Our country will only succeed in solving its problems if it is unified. Conclusion While Pro has yet to provide support for his resolution, I have shown that the US does have a legal right, and a justified reason to deny secession of Texas. (1) . http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us...;(art 1, sec 1)(2) . http://www.archives.gov...;(art 1, sec 10)(3) . http://www.law.cornell.edu... (par 6)

Premise I: Prescriptive and Descriptive Text.The text of a holy book are not all the same. There are two types, Prescriptive and Descriptive. The names give away their differences, with Prescriptive text being text Prescriptive to the reader, like a moral law, or important how-to information. Descriptive text being text that is used to describe something, like a war, the feelings of the characters, or what culture was like. It important to understand these different texts before making assumptions.Premise II: Definition of TerrorTerror: the use of terror to intimidate people, esp. for political reasons; terrorism. (1)Terror is not the same as going to war. Being asked to fight is not the same as being asked to commit terror. It is important to remember that the resolution references Terror as in Terrorism, as to not allow the goal posts to be moved through semantics.1) http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal I: Islamic Text.Pro has listed off numerous texts from the Quran, but if we look at the whole passage, we see the meaning behind the text change rapidly. Let's look at Pro's first text:- "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" Quran (2:191-193)This text has been quite literally cherry-picked. If we look just one verse back, we see this:"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors." Quran (2:190)(2)In this passage, fighting is referencing self defense, likely on a national scale. This would be likely due to the Middle-East's vast religious diversity and the habit of Middle-East religions to war often back then. The passage says to fight, but not to "Transgress", or sin. Pro's arguments also includes poor translation of what the words used mean. Al-Fitnah does not mean Disbelief, it means to Try the Lord, or test him, and is used to reference a grave transgression against the lord (3). Pro had to both cherry-pick text and lied about the meaning of words to make the text look more violent.Pro's attempt at demonizing the meaning of the text is so grave that she got the entirety of the second passage wrong. The passage goes like this: "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." This is clearly explaining the meaning of 'fighting' in this passage, and every other passage in the Book (Surat Al-Baqarah). When the Quran says to Fight in the way or cause of Allah, it is often referring to self-defense, not Terror. We see this here in the text: "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Quran (2:216)"This text is referencing self defense. It is saying that defense is prescribed. This is an example of not understanding the culture or situations under which the text was written. The culture and pagan religions in Mecca and much of Arabia was violent and oppressive. This lead to the need for religions to fight if they were to survive. This is fighting in self-defense, not terror and oppression.- "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." Quran (3:56)This isn't referencing man-made terror, it's referencing God's wrath. This does not imply that the religion endorses it's own people to commit terror.- "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". Quran (3:151)This is an example of Descriptive text. This is not instructions prescribed to the reader, but a description of the writer's feeling. We see a similar example in the Bible. The Israelites sing a song condemning the Babylonians to the pain and death the Israelites suffered. This isn't a prescribed text from God or a command, but a description of how they felt and what they wanted, not how God felt or what he wanted. This is simple misrepresentation.All of Pro's texts are cherry-picked, and doesn't take into account ancient cultures or the scenario under which it was written. They involve poor and even false translating and leaves out important details and passages.2) http://quran.com...3) http://islamqa.info...Rebuttal II: Allah and WomenPro's Argument II is entirely fallacious. Just because Muslims commit terror doesn't mean Islam promotes terror. This statement is in grave error. We see this in the US, where Islam commits only 6% of the terrorist attacks, compared to 42% from Latinos (4). Pro's argument implies the Latino culture promotes terrorism.Pro's statement about women is also irreverent. It has nothing to do with terror, or at least not the terror seen in terrorism. The Quran also gives women rights to chose whom they marry, and to divorce. Sharia Law is cultural, and has no grounds in the Quran. It's important to understand that Muslims are actually very loving towards their wives, less likely to be violent then other Americans. While 15-25% of Jewish women are abused, the same as the general population, only 10% of Muslim women are abused (5).4) http://tinyurl.com...5) http://tinyurl.com...Argument I: Islamic Texts.The Quran is full of text promoting peace and love. While the text only supports fighting in self-defense, it doesn't promote terror or unjustified warfare. It does, however, preach love and tolerance, even towards women."The most perfect believer in faith is the one whose character is finest and who is kindest to his wife" Quran (5:282)While the religion does believe in Marriage Roles, it also believes in being kind and loving to one's wife."It may be that Allah will bring about love between you and those of them with whom you are now at enmity... Allah forbids you not respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you out from your homes, that you be kind to them and deal equitably with them; surely, Allah loves those who are equitable." - Quran, 60:8-9Another example of how the Quran preaches that violence may only be done in self defense. This passage preaches loving each other. The passage claims you may only not love them if they declare war on you for your religion or if they drive you from your home, both of which where major issues in the Middle East and especially Arabia when the passage was written.Argument II: Religion v Culture.One error in Pro's assessment of Islam is in not considering culture and religion. Looking at trends among Muslims, most violent, anti-women's rights, and anti-democratic views correlate in the same areas. This implies that terror and hate isn't religion based, but cultural. Most issues correlate in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.Muslims are actually less approving of killing innocent people in awar, which is a prime focus of terrorism and terror. They are actually against it more than anyone else, being one of the only 2 groups that is more against it than for it (5). Muslims are widely against killing innocent people, even when the Muslims of other cultures are took into account. Muslims in Britain, Germany, and France are even less approving of killing innocent people, and Muslims in Spain are only slightly more approving (6). As this shows, People who follow Islam is less likely to approve of Terror tactics, unless they live in Iran and Iraq, signs that approving of terror is more cultural.While other groups believed most US Muslims are sympathetic towards groups like Al-Qaeda, 92% of Muslims claimed US Muslims had no sympathy to Al-Qaeda (6). Islamic approval of Suicide Bombing and violence towards civilians is immensely low. Pakistan is 87% against it, while most nations are above 50% against it in all cases. This doesn't take into account how many people are against it in most cases. The question leaves open Rarely Justified and Sometimes Justified (7). Approval towards Suicide Bombing as Often or Somethings Justified is low, with the average being no higher than 17%. And support toward Bin Laden has declined in every nation but Nigeria. The average approval rating being no higher than 20%.Killing Civilians was also took into account. With approval towards killing civilians being less than 25% in every nation that isn't Middle Eastern, we can conclude that approving of killing civilians and suicide bombing is cultural, not Religious. Most Muslims in the Middle East support Democracy, and have no qualms with other religions or Christianity. There isn't a single Middle-Eastern nation where more than 50% of the population approves of any terrorist group. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda's approval ratings are below 20% in EVERY nation (8). We can see that there is no true connection between Islam and Terror by looking at Pakistan. The nation believes in following the Quran strictly more than any other, at 82%. Their approval of Suicide Bombing and Terrorist groups are lower than any other nation.Approval towards Suicide Bombing, Terrorist groups, killing civilians, and the use of terror is cultural (Iraq/Iran) and NOT Religious.6) http://tinyurl.com...7) http://tinyurl.com...8) http://tinyurl.com...Conclusion: Verses showing Islam as a religion of terror are all cherry-picked and misrepresented. The Quran preaches love, while Terror and hate are more Cultural and not based off Islam. Even in the Middle East, Muslim are not supportive of terror.

Resolved: Pakistan is not a sovereign state.Definitions1) Pakistan is indeed the nation of Pakistan in South Asia2) legitimate: conforming to justified standards, rules or laws3) sovereign state: a nation or state that holds authority or jurisdiction over a territorial regionRules1) No semantics or trollng2) Drops are concessions3) No new evidence or arguments in the last round4) Forfeit(s) will result in a loss*Rd. 1 is for acceptance. Rd. 2 will start argumentation.

Hi, I'm new to this site but couldn't resist this one. Quickly to respond to and hopefully clarify the rules that the esteemed instigator has proposed. 1) I am intrigued by the idea of a 'burden of proof' existing in a debate which deals with possible future events. As I assume that like myself my opponent lacks a crystal ball or a modified Delorean I fail to see how this topic can be proved at all. I trust that voters will assess the arguments on the factual base of the evidence provided. 2) I'm not sure what 'trolling' or 'flaming' are but my opponent can rest assured I will not be spamming and hopefully will not be doing any of these (presumably related) other activities either. I must apologise for my ignorance of internet jargon. 3) I will endeavour to make all my arguments relevant but as this is an incredibly complex topic with a multi-national relevance and with the added fact of taking into account all conceivable ramifications over the next 20 years, my arguments may be quite wide-ranging. I trust that my adversary is satisfied with my interpretation and clarification of rules. Okay. Firstly, my opponent says: 'As we all know, Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal.' I would strongly dispute this central statement on which all of Cons subsequent arguments are based. While we are all aware of the persistent allegations of this, there is no real evidence of the fact. 'Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction',source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 'Nonproliferation experts note Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium continues to progress but disagree on how close Iran is to mastering capabilities to weaponize.' source: http://www.cfr.org... 'The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.' source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 'Tehran has denied pursuing nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes' source: http://www.cnn.com... Secondly, in the next sentence I would like voters to note my opponents acknowledgement of his own willful ignorance of the details of the topic he has chosen to debate and the allegations he is making. 'president whatever'?...... whatever. Thirdly, in the same paragraph my opponent miss-quotes the link that he himself has provided. (http://www.ynetnews.com......) The text in fact reads 'United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives', not 'the US and Israel will soon end lives.' Whichever way you quote it this is clearly more wishful prophesising on the part of president 'whatever' than it is a threat or statement of intent and also specifically refers to the political regimes rather than the people of these nations. At the risk of veering off topic, I wouldn't mind seeing revolutions overthrow a few corrupt governments myself. Fourthly, my opponent says: 'Russia is an ally of Iran.' Please provide evidence of Russia having links beyond the scope of general business dealings with Iran. Fifthly, my opponent says: 'Barack Obama...does not give a poop about Israel'. Like all US presidents since Israel was created the Obama will be under extreme pressure from the Jewish-American corporate and political lobbyists to maintain good relations with Israel. Israel is probably the foreign country that America is most concerned about in the whole world. While Obama may be less staunchly and obviously pro-Zionist than his immediate predecessor he definately can't afford to 'not give a poot.' My opponent says 'So, Iran has publicly said that it wants to destroy Israel and America. Okay. Now, let's add to that the fact that Iran is going to have its first nuclear weapon in a year or two.' Evidence please. It is clear to me (and I consider myself a rational being) that the best way of ensuring peace is diplomacy rather than aggression, the best way to provoke an attack from Iran would be to engage in any kind of 'pre-emptive' strike. My opponents observations that the current leaders of Israel and the US are pursuing friendlier more peacefull relationships with Iran surely makes a nuclear strike from anyone less likely rather than more so. The final quote from 'the Iranian guy' can also only be perceived as a threat of aggression from someone with a paranoid mindstate, predicting your religion will spread has nothing to do with nuking someone. It would be suicidal for Iran to attack Israel even if they had nuclear weapons capabilities (remember there is no proof) they would never catch up with the military strength of Israel let alone the US. These are two of the best equipped armies in the world, while most of the real aggressors in Iran have nothing more than a few sticks of dynamite in their shirt pockets. Martyrdom doesn't apply to entire nations at a time and there is no way Russia would take any risks sticking up for Iran if things did get nasty. I urge voters to recognise that my opponent has no evidence to back up his statements and to vote Pro. Thankyou.

My Philosophy is the The United States Should Not Be Supporting Terrorism. The reasons listed above prove that the Palestinian Authority is linked with Hamas, (a U.S. designated terrorist group), that they reward terrorists, that the Police Force collaborates and sides with terrorists, and lastly how the government glorifies and promotes terrorism. Rep. Vern Buchanan once said: "This act of cold-blooded violence is an abomination, releasing millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to the Palestinian Authority is outrageous. How can we justify this? We need to send an undeniable message to the world that actions do indeed have consequences." And this is really what it comes down to at the end of the day. Should the United States be supporting terrorism? The Affirmative team stands that no, we should not be supporting terrorism. Instilled in every American is the drive to work hard, survive, to make it. America is a country of patriotism and pride in our accomplishments. And yet we are allowing our taxpayer money to be given freely to terrorists. This is not right, and goes against everything that America stands for. By voting Pro you are sending the clear message that actions do indeed have consequences. It is for all these reasons that the Pro side stands firm: That the United States should not be supporting terrorism. Thank you.

Silly me, I thought that someone who believes humility and meekness are godly virtues would humbly learn from a mistake like this and use it to craft better debates in the future. Everyone makes mistakes. It's your reaction to those mistakes that really defines you.Pro started with a resolution that is impossible to defend, and then expected me to ignore the resolution and argue something different. If Pro wishes to debate with anyone of even average skill, he should learn from his losses rather than hiding from opponents who pose a real challenge. Pro's behavior shows a disregard for basic debate decorum and technique.At this point, Pro has all but conceded. I will await arguments or concession, should my opponent deign to give either.

From what I can gather, your resolution isn't clear, you support some global religious influence on politics? Let me know but realize your resolution leaves some room for interpretation and that's not generally good for Pro. Looking forward to your arguments and thanks for setting up the debate.

Since my last argument, and as would be expected from a few days, hundreds of innocent Palestinian women, children, and elderly have been massacred by the Israeli government, with no further Israeli deaths. As would be expected, rocket attacks have not stopped, but have continued at their retributively intensified rate. As would be expected from a still new, politically timed offensive, the government continues to poll well with its previously more dovish constituency. Any reasonable person will conclude that: a)The actual reason for "attacking Hamas" (electoral success) is nothing like the rhetorical one, and b)Even the rhetorical reason is unjustified, because it punishes collective punishment with collective punishment, 100 times over, thus having no knowledge of the reason collective punishment is considered illegitimate in the first place.


Question: Is a Two-State Resolution Deemed a Viable Answer to the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute?

Israel has justifiable reasons for its actions in Gaza. Considering the 1947 partition plan, which the Palestinians initially rejected, it's evident that the root of the conflict lies in their opposition to the existence of an Israeli state. This is further highlighted by the Palestinian declaration to "push Israel into the sea," indicating their intention to eliminate the Jewish state. After Israel's War of Independence, Egypt and Jordan took over the land designated for the Palestinians, and the Palestinians did not resist this occupation, nor was it considered an occupation by the international community, as there was never a sovereign Palestinian state to occupy.

The motives of the Palestinian resistance are not driven by a legitimate struggle for independence but by the desire to eradicate the "Zionist entity." In 1964, before the 1967 war, the PLO stated its intention to remove Israel entirely through force. After the Six-Day War, Israel offered to return all the land it had acquired in exchange for full peace relations with its neighboring countries, but the Khartoum Resolution rejected this proposal. Syria and Egypt have also made clear their intentions to destroy Israel.

In 1974, the Palestinians agreed to a two-state solution, but it was merely a stage in their plan to achieve a union of the confrontation countries, aiming to liberate all Palestinian territory, essentially the destruction of Israel. Hamas's charter from 1988 calls for the complete eradication of the Jewish state. Despite the PLO's declaration in 1988 that it rejected violence and accepted a two-state solution, many Israelis remained skeptical due to the PLO's phased plan, which indicated that this was only a stepping stone to reclaim all claimed territory.

Israel has shown its willingness to live in peace and security with its neighbors, offering a full state to the Palestinians in 2000, which Arafat rejected. The Palestinian people's election of a group that has not renounced violence, recognized Israel's right to exist, or called for its destruction, further demonstrates the Palestinians' intentions. Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel and renounce violence, as shown by the Washington Post article, is a clear indication of their stance against a two-state solution. Hamas has not signed the Arab League charter and does not adhere to its terms.

The facts on the ground are the reality, and Israel acquired land in a defensive war as a result of continuous threats by Syria and Egypt. Israel retained the land as a buffer against future attacks and as leverage for future peace

Yes the troop surge is working right now, and may continue working IF WE HAVE TROOPS THERE. However, no citizens of American will have the patience to maintain the current troop levels for decades to come. In fact, according to a Washington Post poll, http://www.washingtonpost.com... 53% of Americans want a deadline for pull out. 67% continue to oppose troop surge. While debate for whether to keep the US in Iraq for 1 or 2 more years is heated, there is absolutely no question about extending the US's stay for a decade. This does not make the troop surge a "viable" one, for it is more of a cheap band aid on the violence instead of a solution that truly targets the problems of Iraq. The troop surge is not "viable" in the long term situation of Iraq. Now, we can look toward the actual causes of the violence in Iraq. Yes, problems in Iraq stem from Political reasons, and because of this, a political solution should be explored. Simply, by going into the region the United States ignited centuries of hate between Shiites and Sunnis. It is this conflict that caused Britain to pull it's influence from the region decades before. This conflict has been suppressed in recent decades by Saddam's militaristic and totalitarian regime. He was one to use military to quell dissent. It would not send a good image of a supposedly democratic nation is we also were to use this tactic to quell fighting. It would go against the basis of democracy if a long term occupation by US troop surge forces were to be maintained. Also, with the execution of Saddam Hussein, which took place on a Sunni religious holiday, but not a Shiite religious one (the Shiite holy day started the day after) this clearly shows that the predominantly Shiite government has not pursued compromising solutions between the two fighting parties. These diplomatic approaches would not only be more democratic, but pose a better solution than packing troops in because it actually TARGETS THE PROBLEM. If someone has heart problems, a doctor would first look toward possibly unblocking arteries, rather than installing a machine do the pumping for it. Now, we can look toward this "democratic nation" in particular. You brought up the point that the IM is ineffective. Yes, this is the case, however this has been due to a lack of attention on the Iraqi government's part. Training of these forces have been very slow, and what's more is that much of the IM is actually infiltrated by militants. Targeting a solution with the Iraqi Military is much more practical than just packing US troops into every inch of Iraqi territory. You stated that it has bought Iraq time to build up a functioning military, however, the future of Iraqi police forces do not look bright due to this reliance on US troops, which you acknowledged as existing. Also, the fact that Iraqi security forces are infiltrated compromises their effectiveness further. It is true that Iraq is our duty, however I am in no way saying that we should just cut and run from Iraq. My point is that there are much more better solutions that can be pursued other than the troop surge- and further troop surges. To summarize the arguments I have made in second round: 1)Long term US involvement at this troop level is not possible 2)Political solutions would make for better solutions than a troop surge. 3)These political solutions have not been fully explored by the Iraqi government. 4)IM is ineffective, is infiltrated, the army build up is slow.- Due to US reliance. 5)These solutions should be targeted, and the troop surge is not viable in the light of the solutions that target the problems, instead of just trying to stop violence by brute force.

You have won this debate. My debate was incorrect. What I meant was that not all Jews are Israelis. Once again, you have won the debate.

Premise 1: Iran is a fully recognized sovereign state. Premise 2: The United States is a fully recognized sovereign state. Conclusion: If the United States has the right as a sovereign state to develop a nuclear arsenal, then Iran also has the same right and should be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal. Ball is in your court Con. ..

The Resolution Thanks to Pro for an interesting and timely topic.Pro gives the full resolution as "Democratic governments do not derive their authority from democracy, but from inflicting the most terror upon a population than any other organization within the same geographic region." We need to understand what is meant by "terror" in the context of the resolution. The debate title gives it as "use of terrorism." Merriam-Webster defines:terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion http://www.merriam-webster.com...terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands terror> http://www.merriam-webster.com...There are other definitions of terror, Including "a state of intense fear"Pro then claims, "In order to host "democratic elections", an organization must monopolize the right to host elections within their geographic region. This cannot be achieved without initially resorting to the unsanctioned use of violence."To defeat the resolution I must show that it a terrorist assertion of power is not necessary for instituting democracy. History shows at least three non-violent paths to democracy.1. Fair elections by mutual consentPro wrongly equates any asserted authority with terrorism. It is vanishingly rare when two opposing parties want to hold free elections that they resort to violence to determine who will hold the election. In fact, it seems logically impossible. If A wants a fair election and B wants a free election, there is no reason to resort to violence o determine who holds the election. A and B will cooperate. It's only when one side does not want democracy that violence would be used to seize power and then hold an unfair or rigged election. It is not true that the power to hold elections must be monopolized. If both sides want democracy hey will cooperate to bring the elections.In democratic countries there are typically two or more opposing political parties. According to the resolution, one of the parties must terrorize the others in order to seize the power hold elections. That is not the case. Both cooperate in setting up and administering a fair system. For example, in the United States the parties appoint poll watchers who inspect the polling pace and the ballot process to ensure that the agreed-upon rules are obeyed. If the rules are claimed to be violated, the mater is brought to an independent judiciary who resolves the issue. Nothing that could be construed as terrorism takes place.2. Unelected regimes choosing free electionsPro is concerned about emerging democracy and cites the example of upcoming elections in Egypt. Pro claims, "only a legitimate authority can host a legitimate election in which politicians are legitimately elected into power." That's not true. An unelected regime may chose to host a free election. There are many examples of this I will cite three:Military rule in Chile gave way to democracy in process in which power was relinquished incrementally, first by allowing an Assembly to be elected and a Constitution to be instituted, and ultimately full democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org... External as well as internal political forces were at work pressuring the military to surrender power, but they did so without any process of terrorism. The previous dictator, Pinochet, had ruled with a reign of terror, but the subsequent transition from military rule to democracy was peaceful. Taiwan is another example of dictatorial rule giving way peacefully to democracy. The KMT ruled Taiwan as a single-party state for forty years, until democratic reforms were mandated during the final year of authoritarian rule under Chiang Ching-kuo. The reforms were promulgated under Chiang's successor, Lee Teng-hui, which culminated in the first ever direct presidential election in 1996. , http://en.wikipedia.org...Spain is yet another example of a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to democracy. "The willingness of Spain’s political leaders to compromise, plus a growing level of economic development, allowed Spain to near-seamlessly evolve from Franco’s dictatorial state to a democratic monarchy." http://www.e-ir.info... It did take some time, during which a series of elections marked the transition to full democracy. 3. External monitoring of electionsAnother method is to use an outside organization to supervise the transition to democracy. Of course, the unelected regime may choose not to set up a fair system, but contrary to the resolution, they clearly may choose to do so. The United Nations Department of Political Affairs, through its Electoral Assistance Division (EAD), aids the transition to democracy. http://www.un.org...For example, the United Nations provided supervision of fair elections in Cambodia.A major step towards normalization occurred with the elections of May 1993. Twenty parties took part in the elections. UNTAC oversaw the electoral campaign and registration of voters, as well as the elections. Over 4.2 million people -- nearly 90 per cent of the registered voters -- cast their ballots to elect a Constituent Assembly. The head of UNTAC declared the elections free and fair. In September, the Constitution was proclaimed and an new government, led by two prime ministers, was inaugurated. http://www.un.org...There is the start of the UN monitoring elections in Libya, though whether it succeeds remains to be seen. http://www.un.org...Election monitoring has also been provided by the Organization of American States, the British Commonwealth, and the Council of Europe. http://tinyurl.com... These organizations monitored many transitions to democracy, including in South America, Eastern Europe and Asia.The United States as monitored elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. SummaryIt's possible that attempts to transition from unelected government to democracy may fail in Egypt or elsewhere, Failure means that some organized force does not want democracy, either the regime in power or one of the emerging political factions. That's not inevitable, and it's clearly false that organizing of elections requires "terror." I have given three peaceful means by which it is possible to accomplish the transition to democracy. I have cited many examples of peaceful transition to democracy being accomplished.The resolution is negated.

Good sir, thank you for initiating this debate. I accept and look forward to debating with you. This is a very fitting resolution for my first debate on this site.

Thank you but I will only debate on the side I think is right. I will post my opinion even if you are bi*ching about it. Even if Hamas kill THREE innocent people that shouldn't make Israel kill hundreds of people. It really makes hitler's words true:You will swear to me for Jews that I couldn't kill

Thank you for the challenge. I will be organizing my arguments by using groups of arguments. Each of which will be a new reason to reject the resolution. =========================================================== ARGUMENT ONE - The direct interpretation of the Bible is inaccurate. Accepting the premise of this argument means that it is illogical to use the Bible as a source for predicting the future therefore countering the resolution. (If you do not accept this argument, then the remainder of my arguments should still sufficiently reject the resolution.) A. "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. (James 5:14-15)." ---Prayer does not cause disease and the only study done on the matter actually shows that prayer decreases the likelihood for medical success (If you want the study I will find it). B. "Diseases are not caused by demons, unless medicine is exorcism. -A mute could talk after having the demon driven out (Matthew 9:32) -A "demon-possessed" man who was blind and mute is cured by Jesus (Matthew 12:22) -A demon caused seizures (epilepsy) in a boy (Matthew 17:14-18) -A group of spirits caused a man to be insane (Mark 5:1-13) -A spirit crippled a woman (Luke 13:11)." ---This contradicts current evidence that physical microorganisms cause disease… not demons. C. "And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies. (2 Samuel 7:10-11)" ---This is completely a false assessment since the Israelites lost their land several times and are constantly under fire from people committing evil deeds. [SOURCE] http://www.coppit.org... D. Exodus is unlikely to have happened. [SOURCE] http://www.aish.com... E. Therefore, who is to even know if an antichrist will ever exist? =========================================================== ARGUMENT TWO - If the accuracy of the Bible is legitimized by the judges, then it is unlikely that Obama is the figure known as the antichrist. A. "We are told quite a bit about this coming world leader, Satan's counterfeit messiah, who will someday soon rise in power... -He will rise to power first over 3 and then 10 nations -He will bring 'peace', yet conquer through treaties and war -He will be very, very popular around the world -He will not regard "the desire of women" -He will likely be charismatic and physically attractive ... like King Saul -He will receive what appears to be a fatal wound to the head -He will appear to be resurrected from the dead -His right eye may be blinded and his arm completely withered -He will enforce a "peace" plan or resolution (covenant) upon nation Israel -He may help to get the new Jewish Temple built in Jerusalem -He will appear to perform miracles ("lying signs and wonders") -He will require that everybody on Earth receive a mark or identification on their forehead or hand and nobody will legally be able to buy or sell without it -He will stand in a new Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and declare he is "God" -Unspeakable terror and war will then engulf Earth for exactly 3ï¿½ years (1260 days) -He will direct the slaughter of millions of Christians and Jews who come to know the Lord -He will lead the armies of the world into Israel . . . Armageddon." ---Some of these can be done in the future, but some of them are straight up ridiculous. Does Obama have SOME relations to the biblical prediction? Sure… but he does not have all of them, nor does he even have a majority of them. [SOURCE] http://www.theprophecies.com... B. The Bible also talks about how the antichrist will lead an group of horsemen. Obama has yet to lead an army of horses and this is simply unrealistic in this era. =========================================================== ARGUMENT THREE - It is more likely that Prince Charles is the Antichrist. A. "When the Book of Revelation told us to, "Calculate the number of the Beast, for the number is that of a man and his number is 666", it literally gave us his name. Onomastics is the study of names. Any onomastics book will show that Charles means "man". It means "man" or "manly". The words "Charles" and "man" can be used interchangeably in that verse without affecting the meaning at all. That verse literally reads, "...for the number is that of a Charles..."" B. "That verse also says, "And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority." The dragon is "symbolic" to others, but not to Prince Charles. He has a red dragon on his coat of arms. It comes from the flag of Wales, and it is in his title, Prince of Wales, that Charles is heir-apparent to the throne of Great Britain." C. "The Bible refers to the Antichrist as a "despicable person" who has not yet received a kingship. Prince Charles is not well respected by his own people (even more so after the Diana 'car crash'). He has been through many messy public scandals, and there have been rumours of homosexuality, adultery (proven), occult practices and spiritual worship-and he has not yet received his kingship!" D. "Riddle of the Seven Kings, (the 3rd riddle): In the Book of Revelation, Chapter 17, Verses 10-11, it says, "There are seven kings. Five were, one is and one is to be. The Beast is the eighth and of the seven." There were seven emperors of the Holy Roman Empire named Charles, (check the World Book Encyclopaedia). Prince Charles' lineage chart shows that he is descended, through his father, from the fifth emperor of the Holy Roman Empire named Charles, of the House of Hapsburg. Prince Charles is the eighth and, (by his lineage), he is also of the seventh." E. "Prince Charles' coat of arms and crest was designed for him by the British College of Heraldry, using a system of guidelines over 500 years old. It contains all the Biblical symbols of the Antichrist. It has a dog supported by a roaring lion and a unicorn, (called a wild beast with a straight horn, or a wild oxen). Psalms 22:19-21 describes these animals, with a prayer for deliverance. The composite beast of Revelation 13:2, with the head of a lion, body of a leopard and feet of a bear is symbolic for other people--but not for Prince Charles. It is on his Coat of Arms. It represents the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. These are the animal symbols for France, the leopard; Germany, the Bear; and England, the lion. These nations represented the western arm of the Holy Roman Empire." F. Note that none of these apply to Barak Obama. [SOURCE] http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com... =========================================================== Let's discuss his opening arguments a little bit: ILLINOIS LOTTERY NUMBERS 1) Of the MILLIONS of numbers randomly produced around the world each day, it is not surprising that at least one of them would come up with 666 or something else suspicious. Why, however, were 666 and 7779 placed in Pick 1 and Pick 2 (rather than 3 and 4)? 2) Is something that should be waived as a coincidence be seen as a warning? If God wanted to warn us, don't you think it would be done in a more noticeable way? If God did not want to warn us, then this is simply a coincidence. 3) A decade from now, I assure you that we won't be looking back at this regretting that we didn't see the Illinois lottery as key to preventing mass chaos in our world. 4) Prince Charles is linked to 666 in a more legitimate way. ---The rest of his arguments are a bunch of conspiracy theories. These type

Yes, the first argument is twisting the resolution. That's called a prison wall. It is neither a fence in the traditional sense or a border. The term border fence is specific enough to warrant the exclusion of such definitions. People illegally enter the country anyway. A massive super-expensive fence isn't going to do squat. As much as we love the Great Wall of China everybody agrees that it's a pretty massive failure, there's just too much border to guard. In the age of explosives and technology it gets worse. People will just blow the fence up. Seriously, you could walk up to it with some dynamite or any of a variety of explosives and blow it up. You wouldn't even need to care about going through before during or after. Blow a few holes in it and you'll have easy passage for a few months before our government gets around to doing squat about it. Ineffective certainly but it's probably pretty cheap, right? How does 49 billion dollars sound? http://www.sfgate.com... Not that nice eh? --- I agree that we need to control immigration but I don't agree that an ineffective waste of massive amounts of cash is the right way to go about this. I could fix the illegal immigration for a few million dollars. Rat out any business that hires illegal immigrant labor and you get $5,000, a temporary work visa, and accelerated approval for you and your family to immigrate to the United States. We'd pay out a few million dollars and nobody would ever hire illegal immigrants again. Problem solved. No economic encouragement to break our laws and they won't break our laws. We don't need to spend 49 billion dollars (that's more than 150 dollars from every man, woman, and child in the United States (including the 11 million here illegally)) There's a right way to go about securing the borders and a wrong way. Where there's a will there's a way. We need to get rid of the reasons people come here rather than dealing with the problem superficially and suggesting that a big fence will stop people when it can't and doesn't work. We don't really want to solve the problem. The solution is downright trivial and the reason for the political support for the Border Fence is not because people think it will work, but because they know it will fail while allowing them to appear strong on the issue. Punish the businesses exploiting workers and denying opportunities of American jobs for American workers. Just because there's a problem doesn't mean we need to instantly defer to a really bad, ineffective, and expensive "non-solution"... however this is government we're talking about and that's how government tends to operate. Market forces and human nature could fix this problem in short order, if anybody had the political will to enforce.

I'll begin by rebutting what you just said, then reaffirming my main premise. Yes, Israel is a country with Arabs, Jews, and Christians. Interestingly enough, the Zionist jews publically stated that "Gentiles were created by God to serve the Jewish people". Sounds awfully similar to the nazi aryan ideals of Mr. Adolf Hiter, who claimed that the Aryan race was supreme and thus persecuted and eliminated those who deemed to be racially impure. So, instead of saying I'm out of line for declaring Israel the 4th reich, look at the facts,which you conveniently ignored in my first argument. But I like what you said, "The Jews were given a homeland by God". First of all, that is no reason to send them 3 billion dollars of Taxpayer money, and is thus irrelevant, but secondly, was it not the Jews who uprooted the Palestinians who lived there for 2000 years previous to 1948? Yeah, I think some people would try to uproot them. Maybe its because there were native Arabs living there for more than 8 generations before 1948, and the Jews came and forced them out. The sooner you realize the facts, you will come to see that the only thing outrageous here is the fact that Israel is killing innocent people through our money. Moving on, I love how ignorant you are when you talk about issues like allies, nuclear proliferation, and the economy. Yes, Israel is a powerful ally in the middle east. The real question is: so what? We have other allies too, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey. Why aren't they recieving 3 billion dollars in aid? You call me racist and discriminatory in that I believe we should withdraw foreign aid from Israel, but conversely wouldn't you agree that apportioning more funding to Israel than some of these neighboring countries is discriminatory? What makes Israel so special? Oh, it must be because Israel kills the most amount of innocent people! Right, okay. So, ur logic in calling me racist is flawed, and untill you can answer why Israel DESERVES to recieve that money, you're fighting an uphill battle. Next, you talk about the economy. 750 billion deficit spending? Son, do you even know what deficit spending is? We ought to deficit spend to create growth, jobs, and stability. 3 billion dollars every year isn't creating growth, jobs, or stability, rather its adding to the already tremendous debt of over 17 trillion dollars. We've pulled out of Iraq and are almost out of Afghanistan, there is no need for 3 billion dollars going to Israel. It's merely straining our economy. As unemployment holds steadily at 6,2%, any american would agree that is detrimental to the economy to spend so lavishly. TO add to this sentiment, I'd like to quote Israel's Prime minster Netayahu himself who said in front of the UN that "Israel doesn't need nation building, we're already built". Even their own prime minister doesn't want our aid, why give it? In addition, you are completely wrong when u call Israel capitalist, because they have a quasi-socialist type of economy. Finally, you bring up Iran and nuclear proliferation. Oh man, this is my favorite part, A 1970s US CIA report claimed that Israel had a fully prepared nuclear warhead arsenal. They were not a part of the NPT (nuclear non proliferation treaty)last I checked, and so Israel having these nukes is completely against International law. Iran, on the other hand, signed the NPT and is upholding to international inspections and law. In fact, ISRAEL is the only nuclear proliferater in the middle east. See, if you knew half of what you were actually talking about, you would know IRAN is trying to nuclearize in RESPONSE to Israel. Furthermore, Israel is adding to their nuclear arsenal and still refuses to adhere or even acknowledge their nuclear weapons programme. Yet, in your logic, we should just ignore Israel's illegal activity and blame Iran? Iran doesn't even have 1 NUCLEAR WARHEAD yet, and Israel has hundreds. In your logic, we should support, through aid, a country that refuses to adhere to international laws, and could be the start of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Fun idea, right? In conclusion, our money is basically being sent to racist, law breaking, ungrateful people who provide absolutely no benefit to the US. If you look at cost-benefit analysis of US aid to Israel, we're only getting hurt economically. Thus, I affirm

Thanks to my opponent for his reply.CON seems to focus solely on the issue of whether Israel commits war crimes, the first of my three points, and does not reject my arguments that if they are happening then we should care and if we care then the appropriate method is through economic boycott and sanctions like BDS.In this round I will therefore solely focus on the issue of whether Israel commits war crimes and human rights abuses.Does Israel Kill Indiscriminately?Two fundamental basis of International Military Law (IML) are discrimination and proportionality[1]. When either of these are not met the killing can be called indiscriminate. Simply put armed forces are required to recognise the difference between civilians and military and to ensure that any incidental civilian casualties are proportional to a legitimate military goal. or to put it another way, incidentally killing one civilian while trying to kill twenty terrorists is a tragedy - incidentally killing twenty civilians while trying to kill one terrorist is a war crime.CON argues that because the IDF says they cannot attack a target if it endangers innocents, they must not be able to. In the face of the bias inherent in using a a source with a vested interest in not being found guilty of war crimes, the much stronger and more neutral sources I cited in R1 and the mere existence of an IML presupposing that states cannot be trusted to judge themselves guilty or not of war crimes, I find this argument very lacking.Further, by reference to evidence we can see CON's claims are false.For instance Israel has been willing to fire heavy munitions into civilian homes and even level entire neighbourhoods both killing residents and pushing those who survive into a life of homeless poverty[2]. The first link includes quotes to Israeli soldiers own testimonies on this, so it is hard to refute.The UN Report On Protective Edge[3] also includes examples of them killing families of 20 odd civilians with precision weaponry for no valid reason.If Israel doesn't indiscriminantly kill civilians, what happened to the 22 members of the al-Daya family that were killed? What about the use of indiscriminate fletchette ammunition (which inherently makes it a war crime on par with Palestinian militant group's missiles) to kill five mourners at the Abd al-Dayem funeral? The 15 civilians killed at the al-Maqadmah mosque? The killing of all 8 members of the Al Hajj family? The 9 dead, 3 women (One of them pregnant) and 6 children, on the attack on the Al Qassas family? The 19 killed, 11 of which were children including an 8 month old baby, when a 1,000 or 2,000 lb bomb was dropped on the Al Najjar household? The 19 killed in the attack on the Abu Jabr house in a refugee camp?Human ShieldsCON states the IDF does not use human shields but his only evidence is his personal testimony that the Israel police cars are inconsistent with that. I beleive this can be disregarded because:1) The Jeep is that of the Israeli Border Police (IBP) that operate in Palestine, not the police that CON would see within Israel and be familiar with.2) That picture is from 2004 [4]. Based on his profile, CON would have been approx 3 y.o. at this point in time and I think it is reasonable to assume he wouldn't have developed an indepth knowledge of the vehicles used by different police branches at this age.3) It is consistent with other unrelated pictures of IBP vehicles.[5]4) In 2004 the IDF was using people as human shields by Israel's own admission. It was only on 2005 that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that human shields (or the "neighbour procedure" as it is euphemistically known) was illegal with Israeli defence officials claiming that "the Israel Defense Forces made use of the ‘human shield’ procedure on 1,200 occasions over the last five years"[6]. I will present the case momentarily that they continue to use people as human shields afterwards even though it now violated their own laws as well as international ones, but this shows CON's argument for why they weren't using human shields can't possibly be true.5) There is compelling evidence to show that Israel is still using human shields. The Youtube link I included in R1 is from NGO Breaking the Silence, where IDF soldiers have spoken out about the culture of human rights abuses and war crimes. He explicitly states that they sued human shields and he is not the only IDF witness[7][8].Other systematic approaches looking at the evidence have concurred. For instance the UN report I cite in R1[9] examines this in detail throughout paragraphs 1032 to 1106. Although to dense to quote their reasoning and the individual evidence they use to come to the conclusion (it relies on evidence from Palestinians AND Israelis however) they conclude:"1105. The Mission also finds that the intentional use as human shields of those whose accounts are presented above qualifies as inhuman treatment of and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As such, the Mission considers the conduct of the Israeli armed forces in relation to such persons to amount to grave breaches of the said Convention. The use of human shields is also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii) of the Rome Statute."6) Even Israel admits there are still occasions when people use human shields[10], that example being from a few years ago when soldiers ordered a child to open a package they thought might be boobytrapped so the child would get hurt in the event of this being the case rather than them.Although Israel only very rarely recognises when soldiers commit human rights abuses (this example being a rare time they do)[11] and the punishment was very lax, it shows that your argument of "Israel never uses human shields" is even more pro-Israel than Israel's official position.This is followed by an argument that Hamas uses human shields. Part of my argument in R1 raised the issue that human rights abuses and war crimes are not allowed if someone commits them to you first. Con has not challenged this so I think this argument is irrelevant.Further, neither argument fits the definition of a human shield as presented in international law:"493: The Mission finds it useful to clarify what is meant, from a legal perspective, by using civilians or a civilian population as a human shield. Parties to a conflict are not permitted to use a civilian population or individual civilians in order to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. It is not in dispute that both Palestinian armed groups and Israeli forces were fighting within an area populated by civilians. Fighting within civilian areas is not, by itself, sufficient for a finding that a party is using the civilian population living in the area of the fighting as a human shield. As the words of article 57 (1) show (“shall not be used to render”, “in order to attempt to shield”), an intention to use the civilian population in order to shield an area from military attack is required. "[9]Even the IDF admits that merely taking part in military action in proximity to civilians does not in and of itself justify the classification of "human shields. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, and former Head of the International Law Department of the IDF Military Advocate General, explained in a conference at the University of Haifa: "In a scenario like the Gaza Strip you cannot expect the other side or demand the other side to act only from empty areas, to go out of all the populated areas, fire only from there or from the beach area when no people are there, it's not something that is expected. Therefore to say that the fact that they are operating from populated areas, in itself is a war crime or is in breach of the law of armed conflict, is not a plausible argument"[3] Simply put, the expectation that Hamas should march out into barren areas like 17th century line infantry is frankly bizarre and inconsistent with IML. Urban warfare is almost as old as human civilisation and it is not inherently wrong or criminal. Soldiers specifically shielding themselves with civilians is and this is something that so far we only know that Israel is guilty of.Israel is good because of XCon provides several reasons why Israel should be viewed as good. As none of them contest my R1 argument that the prohibition against war crimes is absolute and there are no reasonable excuses for them, I beleive it is irrelevant. However in the short space left, I'd like to show how they're still misrepresentations.Israel does provide some services to Palestine, but the rationale for this is not benevolent. Israel has been economically blockading and damaging Palestine for a long time[12], keeping them from developing their economy and keeping them dependent on Israel. this allows Israel to use it's power to coerce Israel - for instance by shutting off those vital services it supplies[13] in contravention of IML[14].Similarly Israel's warning to Palestinian civilians to evacuate entire neighbourhoods before they attack is Israel's rationale for then declaring entire areas terrorist zones - allowing IDF to shoot kill any civilians with no heed for the basic principle of distinction.[3]Lastly in regards to administrative detention, the unsupported claim that they are all terrorists do not hold up. In fact "Israel has administratively detained Palestinians for their political opinions and non-violent political activity."[15][1] http://goo.gl...[2] https://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://goo.gl...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://goo.gl...[11] http://goo.gl...[12] https://goo.gl...[13] http://goo.gl...[14] https://goo.gl...[15] http://goo.gl...