Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Israeli military assault in Gaza

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 01:11, 8 January 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Yes)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 07:04, 8 January 2009 (edit)
William Wnekowicz (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 1: Line 1:
 +<seo title="Israeli Invasion of Gaza" metak="Invasion of Gaza, Israel, Hamas, Blockade, Debate" metad="This debate discusses whether or not the Israeli invasion of Gaza was justified." />
 +
{|style="font-size:100%; border:1px solid #BAC5FD; " cellpadding="0" {|style="font-size:100%; border:1px solid #BAC5FD; " cellpadding="0"

Revision as of 07:04, 8 January 2009

Was Israel's 2008/2009 military bombing and invasion of Gaza justified?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Self-defense: Was Israel's invasion an act of self-defense?

Pro

  • Israel's invasion of Gaza was an act of self-defense US President George W. Bush - "The situation now taking place in Gaza was caused by Hamas. Instead of caring about the people of Gaza, Hamas decided to use Gaza to launch rockets to kill innocent Israelis. Israel's obviously decided to protect herself and her people."[1]
President-elect Barack Obama - "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing."[2]
  • Defeating Hamas is key to long-term Israeli/Palestinian peace. "Israel's Gaza Defense". Wall Street Journal. December 29th, 2008 - "as Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi explain, the Israeli public isn't about to make territorial concessions on the West Bank or the Golan Heights if Gaza is allowed to become a neighboring terrorist state that can launch attacks with impunity. Israel has already had a bad enough experience letting that happen with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Meanwhile, the stronger Hamas becomes, the more resistance Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will face to making any concessions to Israel."
  • Israel's strikes have severely damaged Hamas, secured Israel. "Israel's Gaza Defense". Wall Street Journal. December 29th, 2008 - "the Israeli strikes have hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces -- both to its leadership and, on Sunday, to the tunnels from Gaza to Egypt that Hamas uses to smuggle in weapons and build its growing army."
  • Israeli invasion responds to growing Hamas ties with Iran. "Israel's Gaza Defense". Wall Street Journal. December 29th, 2008 - "Egypt's Foreign Minister, Ahmed Abul Gheit, assailed Israel's air strikes but also held Hamas responsible. They understand that Hamas, like Hezbollah, is increasingly allied with Iran and its goals for fomenting regional instability."

Con

  • Attacking Gaza distracts Israel from Iranian threat Israel's main strategic threat is Iran. By attacking Gaza, Israel distracted itself from containing the Iranian threat. Furthermore, Israel's attack has helped bolster Iran's case in the region against Israel.

Proportionality: Was Israel's invasion proportional to the Hamas attacks?

Pro

  • Israel's invasion of Gaza was proportional to existential Hamas threat Hamas has stated that its objective is to destroy Israel. The rocket attacks from Hamas, therefore, were appropriately recognized by Israel as a component of its larger stated goal of destroying Israel, particularly when considering that 6,500 rockets were fired by Hamas between 2005 and the beginning of 2009.[3] Israel's response was proportional to this long-term threat. In this way, Israel's invasion of Gaza was a pre-emptive measure against the future threat posed by Hamas.


Con

  • Israel's attack of Gaza was about the approaching elections. Katherine Butler. "Why Did Israel Attack Gaza?". The Independent. December 29th, 2008 - "Are Israeli domestic politics a factor? Very much so. Israel is preparing for general elections on 10 February. The prospect of a return to power by the hawk Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, promising tough action against Hamas, has hardened the positions of Israel's more moderate political leaders."



Ceasefire: Is Hamas to blame for breaking the cease-fire?

Yes

"Israel's Gaza Defense". Wall Street Journal. December 29th, 2008 - "Hamas refused to extend the truce past December 19"

No

Civilians: Who is in the right in regards to civilian casualties?

Pro

  • Hamas targeted civilians; Israel aimed at military targets. Al Jazeera interview of Gary Grant on January 5th, 2009 - "[Al Jazeera]: Surely the killing of civilians is against international law and the targeting of populated areas where you know that civilians are going to die is against international law.
[Gary Grant]: Even if you target your action at military sites, civilians are inevitably going to get killed...these need to be contrasted with the actions of Hamas where every single rocket is designed to attack civilian populations, so every single act of Hamas in firing these rockets is clearly an illegal act without any legal justification."[4]
  • Civilians were killed because Hamas locates rockets amid civilians. "Israel's Gaza Defense". Wall Street Journal. December 29th, 2008 - "Israel's air assault has resulted in more Palestinian casualties, but that is in part because Hamas deliberately locates its security forces in residential neighborhoods. This is intended both to deter Israel from attacking in the first place as well as to turn world opinion against the Jewish state when it does attack. By all accounts, however, the Israeli strikes have hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces -- both to its leadership and, on Sunday, to the tunnels from Gaza to Egypt that Hamas uses to smuggle in weapons and build its growing army."

Con

  • Israel killed many times more civilians than Hamas. Israel's military bombings of Gaza killed roughly 200 hundred Gazan civilians, whereas Hamas rocket attacks killed only around 10 Israeli civilians. That means that Israel killed roughly twenty times more civilians than Hamas. It is this disproportion that makes Israel's attacks so egregious and potentially criminal under international law.



Blockade: Was Israel's blockade of Gaza justified?

Yes

No

  • Israel didn't lift blockade when Hamas restricted rocket fire. The New York Times published an article on December 19th, 2008, saying "Hamas imposed its will and even imprisoned some of those who were firing rockets. Israeli and United Nations figures show that while more than 300 rockets were fired into Israel in May, 10 to 20 were fired in July, depending on who was counting and whether mortar rounds were included. In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10. [...] But the goods shipments, while up some 25 to 30 percent and including a mix of more items, never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival. Instead, the number of trucks increased to around 90 from around 70."[5]

Pro/con resource

Pro


Con

External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.