The "Humanitarians" brought not only food to Gaza, but violence and hatred against Israel.

Round 5. Good day to Pro, readers and fellow debaters. In accordance with Pro's layout of round 5 I surmise on the following - I will not restrict my point to Terrorists houses only, I will maintain it at houses in general (Backed with link, round 4.) as this a contributing factor to the current situation. The video was not to relay Hezbollah attacking Israel (I posted that to illustrate the points being made by George Galloway M.P.) That Hezbollah are retaliating against Israel since Israel occupies southern Lebanon. I never mentioned the mental state of Rabbi's who state that Palestinians are Amalekites. This was to illustrate how Israel are enjoining a battle over land with their own religiosity. It's an attempt to justify what the Israeli army are doing in religious terms. 1.) a.) For the illegitimacy of seizing the ships, I hereby remind you that a blockade clearly defines a boundary in occupied waters. Anything beyond that boundary is out of your jurisdiction; you have no authority as to what goes on beyond your border. Your round 2 point 1 does not display a direct link, or quote directly to an official document of law, or pertaining to a specific law explaining the boarding of a ship in international waters. The 'el bloqueo' is poor choice of example as it only displays that such things once started, last. Also note readers, as per the information on the link, this blockade had laws behind it, backed by the U.S. Senate and I have no reasons to suspect (legally) that it breaks any laws regarding international waters. b.) I will agree that the pistols were not used directly for the purpose of attacking (Though I never made this claim.) Any weapon no matter what its purpose is either going to be used to attack, or secondarily to counter attack. I may sound erratic now, but am I missing something?! I have posted links relating to eyewitness accounts stating that the ships were fired upon first. I don't see it to be too great a leap that if you are fired upon from one ship to another, so aggression has emanated from the Israeli navy, what would you do? Cower? Remember the Humanitarians showed defiance already, it makes sense they would defend themselves. 'Naval experts explain that this is not doable' - All I ask is, why do ships collide then? Because one is in front of the other. Seems plausibly doable to me. I accept it is a risk and there would be injuries, it is in essence though a bargaining move (equivalent to a game of Chicken at sea) these people are humanitarians, not martyrs. 2.) I can't believe my luck. Am I misreading your links to the Guardian website or Deutsche Welle website? Both sites contain condemning stories of Israel. Again, it is about bargaining. The Aid was refused in order to speed up the release of the 600+ humanitarians held captive. Also note, this aid would have been a bonus to the people of Gaza, not receiving it means/meant nothing changed, they had the same amount of aid (1/4 of what is needed) before the daring attempt by the humanitarians as they did afterwards. 'Therefore I will not discuss in this finale: Whether terrorists houses are destroyed rightly or not' - You say this yet your link contains the following information - 'Thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed during the three-week Gaza war in 2008-9. The embargo on building materials has left families living in tents, crowded in with relatives or forced to move in to expensive rented accommodation.' - You continually repeat it is only terrorists who are without a home when clearly it is not (Confirmed by a source of your choice) ' (numbers such as 20, 30 and even 40 deaths were published in the media. It was also claimed that the sheikh Ra'id Salah was Injured or killed. That is, off course a lie, that was aimed to steer the Arab world's public opinion.)' - I agree, lying is a horrible thing - which is exactly why no such atrocious stories/links appeared in my debate. You have no proof that the men engaged with the IDF were terrorists and paid by Hamas. You have articles stating that is so, but none of those articles offer up any proof either - i.e. signed confession, video confessions, evidence of money transfers etc etc it is all alluded to, but never proved. Summary and conclusion. The flotilla was a group of humanitarian aid workers on a special convoy to deliver aid directly to the people of Gaza. They did not approach the Gaza shore territory, they were apprehended by the IDF in international waters off shore and beyond the blockade. This was not planned and all the Israeli released footage shows is one man talking into a radio (prior to the IDF boarding the ship), some Humanitarians preparing to defend themselves with whatever was to hand, a night vision video of a skirmish and that's it. Where is the footage of the moment of the radio conversation up to the Humanitarians preparing to defend themselves? Shots were fired as some of the Israeli held captives state. A media team was on board the ship. To do what? To film the Humanitarian efforts, to show how the people of Gaza are living, to show how little they have. Why is Israel refusing an inquiry into the event? If you have nothing to hide why be evasive? Have I only offered an unbalanced worldview? I have offered up information from the BBC, CNN, Democracy Now, Sky News, Noam Chomsky - Tehran Times, Ahram.org and FAS.org all explaining current events. Take it with a pinch of salt if you will, the pages from Wikipedia, but these at least helped explain the back-story to how we got to where we are now. Pro's choice of words show fire and damnation against the Humanitarians but then followed by 'This is why, I claim that convoy was mostly a provocation' - You either believe it to be totally the case (Pro's role) or not at all (Con's case) The Humanitarians (I won't cheapen the word with quotation marks) didn't bring only food to Gaza, they brought building materials and medicine also. Violence ensued as a matter of self-defence, not provocation. The Humanitarians brought a glimmer of truth regarding these situations. If there is nothing to hide, why deny an inquiry, or should we all be ostrich's and bury our heads in the Arabian sands and allow War Crimes of Occupation, Disenfranchisement of a native peoples, and the Dissemination of people from their loved ones to continue? P.S. - If you're sticking to your initial resolution, why have you abandoned your view that anyone not in agreement with Israel are displaying Nazism? You felt this was a fair point to begin with, where has it dissipated to? Thank you to Pro for being such a noble opponent and for offering a fresh debate with some really good back & forths thrown into the mix. Please vote how you feel you should.