Protective Edge was justified, and was conducted with professionalism

FRAMEWORKI shall take the liberty here to define some terms, then shall move on to my other preliminary comments before my attempts in negating the resolution.Def. 1 Justified shall be defined as an exemplification of justice; i.e all justified actions deliver justiceDef. 2 Professionalism shall be defined, in this context, as abiding with the conduct of the Geneva Convention and other Human Rights conventionThen with these terms justified, it is now clear that the opposition must prove that the cause and effect of Operation Protective Edge (shall be called OPE from now) were both considered deliveries of "justice", and that Israeli's forces acted within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions. Henceforth, the opposition has a slightly higher BoP than I do. Moreover, this proposition is a conjunction, with two conjuncts ("justified" and "professional"), henceforth the negation of one of these conjuncts would mean the negation of the whole motion. Henceforth, even if the opposition proves that these attacks were carried out with professionalism, it may be said that if he fails to prove that it is justified, then the resolution remains negated. CASE1) International RelationsAs the opposition affirms, OPE was launched in retaliation to the deaths of 3 Israeli teenagers. Retaliation was brutal and often scary. If justice were the killing of many innocent people, then justice was delivered in this attack; however, this was not so, as shall be proven in the following contentions. It must be noted here that Israeli forces were the first to react to these murders with an airstrike that killed 7 Hamas members on July 6th. a) Sec Council Resolution 242The United Nations, however, has taken all means (under it's powers) to neutralize the situation at hand here. UN Sec. Council Resolution 242 (passed 1967) demands (in operative clause 2, subclause I) every state to "respect and acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State" which naturally includes Palestine. The same UN Sec. Council Resolution also demanded that Israel withdraw from the following territories currently occupied by the nation: Bethlehem, Jericho, Gaza and Rafah. This was the policy of land for peace. Land for Peace was universally accepted by the Israeli authorities, and withdrawals were organized. However, on the basis of the Sec. Council Reso. 242, Israel must respect the rights to sovereignity of the Palestinian pepole. This resolution provides the only basis for peace in the area until the Accords. b) Oslo AccordsThe Accords concluded that:Upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area, a transfer of authority from the Israeli military governmentThe existence of an autonomous area in Gaza and the West Bank demands Israel to do the following; (1) respect the rights of every Palestinian, (2) accept and respect the right to self-determination as was agreed in the first article of the UN charter, and (3) accept that Palestine is now a self-governing nation de facto, and will soon be de jure. The basis of democracy is the basis to elect whomever one wants; it must be agreed that since Hamas was elected in recent PA elections, it would be completely disgusting, if not unacceptable that Israel is willing to launch attacks on a member of the United Nations. c) International Recognition of the Authority of the PAHowever, how does one apply the notion of rights to whole governing nations? Sovereign nations have the rights to self-defense and sovereign nations have the full rights to sovereignity. It must be noted that 69.9% of the world's countries recognize the state of Palestine and the PA's power to rule. These countries include Russia, China, Sweden, and Brazil. The only countries against the recognition of the PA's power base is countries with strong ties with the United States, such as Australia and Britain. However, these countries still recognize that the PLO (and not Hamas) are the true representatives of the Palestinian people.With two PM of the Sec. Council in recognition (and a clear majority of the world too) of the legitimacy of the PA to rights to self-defense, it would be completely absurd to allow Israeli troops to occupy Gaza and the West Bank without considerations upon sovereignity of a nation. Con.) Justified means to "give everyone his due". This is the only exemplification of justice that can be discovered. A nation has the due of sovereignity, and unless the government (not the ruling party) has attacked another country, no country has any rights to agress on one sovereign nation and still claim to be have their cause justified by the mere institutions of justice. To "give on his due" is to respect agreements and their effects, even if they are contradictory and contrary to your interests. This is the basis of democracy and equality. Israel has not done this, as demonstrated.2) ConductConduct has been a huge issue for OPE. OPE has killed around 2,100++ Palestinian civilians, whilst Palestine has killed 3 Israeli civilians and one Thai worker. This case will prove that the retaliations are both (1) unjustified and (2) conducted with barbarism, not civility and professionalism as the opposition claims. a) Hospital AirstrikesIsrael has launched airstrikes on 7 UN hospitals, and many more hospitals in the PA areas. Technically, it is a natural rule of ethical judgment to not attack those who cannot fight. Apparently, Israeli Defense Forces think that people with missing limbs and arms are terrorists and can resist the onslaught of the armed Israeli soldiers. How is this even conceivable? Nevertheless, via the Geneva Convention, Art. 18:Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.Civilian hospital entails hospitals not supporting militants. The opposition may claim that Hamas has been using hospitals to launch rocket strikes onto the Israeli territory. However, Art. 19 of Geneva Convention states that: Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in allappropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded. Once this has been done, it shall then be conceived that airstrikes were authorized and justified, albeit they may be atrocious in nature. Israel has done the opposite of this; Israel has striked many hospitals without warning. al-Aqsa hospital, a hospital housing many wounded and many terrorized refugees, was indiscriminately shelled by an Israeli tank with no warning whatsoever. [1] Apart from this, it has also been confirmed that there was no military presence near many populated hospitals that Israel shelled.b) Disproportionate Use of ForceAccordingly to Israel's conduct, any connection with Hamas is a legitimate reason for an attack. Israel has been known on many occasions to have used F-16s to attack homes of individual civilians. There are many incidents of this happening; VICE News records an airstrike that destroyed 5 homes in a Gazan street which killed two Palestinian citizens and wounded another. International Humanitarian Law does not allow this; even if the person may be affiliiated with terrorist groups like Hamas or the Islamic Jihad, targets that may be attacked are only those where military and strategic advantage of the place is currently exploited. Accordingly to a HR Council report to the United Nations, "knock on the roof" procedures are highly ineffectual, as Palestinian citizens did not have enough time to leave. In one instance, the knock-on-the-roof came only one minute before the airstrike came. They conducted the operations with professionalism in a sense of war and destruction.Israel treats Palestinian houses which are populated with as much respect as they treat deserted houses; they will launch an airstrike on every house in Gaza if possible. The Geneva Convention quotes:Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civiliansc) Israeli HR Violations and IntentionsIsraeli is not targetting Hamas. They are targetting Palestine as a whole; their definitions of "terrorists" is anyone that supports Hamas, which justifies their attacks apparently. 12 days into the operation, the Israeli Government has targetted 2,000 targets, most of them hit, whilst the Iron Dome system rendered the 1,500 attacks on Israeli lands highly ineffectual. Albeit Hamas's attacks against Israeli citizens are deplorable, retaliation against Hamas in the form of indiscriminate attacks against the Palestine people are much more deplorable than this. Israel has killed 2,200 Palestinian citizens, only about 10% of them "militants".Apart from this, Israel has arrested 700 Palestinians from Gaza since OPE. Is this not equivalent to the abductions by Hamas? There are no justifications for both, but on balance, it can be said that since Israel is not the sovereign power over Gaza and the West Bank, they have no rights to arrest anyone. These actions must be condemened.Con.) Israel has violated the rights of Palestinian citizens, has striked hospitals and has destroyed many Palestinian homes. Israel has violated the Geneva Convention on multiple occassions and is still doing so. Israel has arrested 700 Palestinians and detained many more, most of these from Gaza, where Israel has no sovereignity rights. The violation of the Geneva Convention represents unprofessional behaviour, whilst the other deplorable actions by Israel presents other argumentations for the unjustified nature of OPE. Resolution is negated