isreal vs gaza

The pro accuses me of saying Israel has no right to exist. This is simply false and a wild accusation that has no basis in reality. What I did say is there is no place called isreal, but there is a place called Israel. If you look at the title of this debate, you will see it says there is a place called "isreal". The second statement by the con is that I claimed that the rockets don't do any harm. This is false as well. If one of these homemade Qassam Rockets were to land near you and explode, it would most certainly harm you, and possibly kill you, as I acknowledged when I stated the death toll from rocket attacks. What I did argue is that the threat from these rockets is overstated, as demonstrated by their lack of efficacy, and their notorious inaccuracy.The pro then goes into how he "knows people in the west bank who run to shelters when Hamas fires rockets." This is blatantly false, as the West Bank is well out of range of even the most advanced rockets used by Palestinian militants, and there have been no successful rocket attacks which were launched from the West Bank. He then says he has seen the damage to a 5-year old's bedroom, and uses this as justification as to why we cannot say that these rockets are ineffective and inaccurate. Yet again this does not contradict the facts, which are the rockets used by Palestinian militant groups are ineffective and inaccurate, and when given the probability of being killed in a rocket attack are one in 575 (rough calculations), it is clear that the pro is overstating the danger they pose.The pro then says the Israeli attacks on Gaza are retaliation for rocket attacks, however in the most recent operation, Operation Protective Edge aka the 50 Day War, the operation was launched as a response to the Reconciliation Agreement between Fatah and Hamas, which had resulted in the creation of a new government, and as retaliation for the murder of three Israeli settlers in the West Bank. It also played into a larger strategy used by Israel called mowing the grass. This is the strategy of launching attacks on Gaza sporadically with the intention of making it impossible for Palestinians to build up their infrastructure or economy and keep the administration in Gaza unable to operate with the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank. The con then critiques the fact that Hamas is not the only faction in Gaza, saying "when Israel agree to a ceasefire with Hamas all the sudden the rocket stop going into Israel." This argument glosses over the fact that the ceasefire was not only reached with Hamas leaders, but with leaders of the other factions in Gaza as well.As for the argument against the 1967 borders, the pro claims that if Israel were to end its illegal occupation and attempts at annexation, of the West Bank, the Palestinians would kill all Israelis. He backs this up by stating Hamas said they would trade Gaza for peace, however this is simply untrue. The withdrawal from Gaza was a unilateral decision made by the Israeli government, it was not the result of negotiations with the Palestinians. Hamas, which at the time was still committed to a one state solution, a stance they have since changed, never made any promise. Furthermore the Pro is completely ignoring the fact that while the Troops and settlements may have left Gaza, Israel did not relinquish total control, as they then chose to implement a total blockade of Gaza turning it into what the UN has called an "open air prison", and the continued occupation of the West Bank, which people in Gaza oppose as well. By adopting the 1967 borders the basis of a peaceful settlement will be created. Nearly every proposed peace plan involves the 1967 Borders and UN Resolution 242.http://www.btselem.org...http://www.jpost.com...http://www.merip.org...