Hamas are justified in their actions

Rebuttal Experts like the afore mentioned Hugh Lovatt of the European Council on Foreign Relations have claimed that he has ulterior motive to remain relevant and thus he his evidence cannot be taken at face value. Hamas as a whole has continued to deny any responsibility which supports this. If what he said was true and he was still a relevant leader, why would he go out and say this on a limb? "The intelligence source, however, said that of the nine cross-border tunnels detected, none actually stretches into the grounds of a civilian community. "They could have gone 500 meters more, into the kibbutz," he said. "Why didn"t they do that?" this is a quote from the times of Israel, even they admit that not one of the tunnels goes into an area of civilian occupation. A senior military official outspokenly said that all of the tunnels were aimed at military targets and posed no danger to civilians. In fact Since 2007 there have been no incidents of civilian kidnappings through the tunnels Operation Brother Keeper ended on July 2nd ,in this operation the 350 were arrested and 5 were killed with some sources suggesting even more were killed. So thus it is completely inaccurate to say that "Hamas had began firing rockets before Israel made any arrests in relation to the abduction of the three teens" check the dates of my sources and you will see why. While they may shoot at civilian areas it is as if Hamas shot at someone with a bullet proof jacket on, it has almost no effect, in fact only 5 Israelis actually died-. Hamas of course realise this and thus have a justification for shooting at civilian areas as there is little risk of them killing innocent Israelis and serves more of a statement of intent. You attack Hamas for breaching the ceasefire yet Israel 3 days ago killed a teenager- and with the ratio of missiles fired to Israelis killed that would equate to roughly 1000 rockets being fired into Israel. No one is denying that the abductors were Hamas members, what I have said is that they are not representative of Hamas as a whole. That is why he said "Hamas members" It is misinformed to say that the majority of Israeli citizens are in danger through that diagram when 4,500 missiles are sent into Israel yet only 5 Israelis die Several organisations like Christian aid and Amnesty have raised awareness of the contrary, building materials are heavily regulated or completely banned from Gaza through the blockade- that is why they have built no bomb shelters this can be attributed to Israel not Hamas I have found no evidence of any source which claims that the tunnels could have contributed to civilian casualties- even if this was the case surely it is for the greater good of the civilians to smuggle in fuel as I mentioned earlier which is necessary for the desalination of water and building materials which could be used to build bomb shelters. They have made 10 very reasonable claims which when met by Israel would induce a ten year truce. It is Israel who have refused to agree to these terms and thus are the ones who perpetuate this conflict As I said Gaza is a very overpopulated area of course there will be overlap between where there are public sector buildings and missile sites Israel have committed war crimes and thus it is valid for Hamas to respond in the same way in fact as the UN deemed Israel the 4th most unacceptable country and Hamas have recently been removed from the terrorist blacklist by the EU also Ban Ki-Moon has been outspoken in his condemnation of Israel and to a lesser degree Hamas they are thus clearly deemed to be more just than Israel by world organisations. I maintain that the statements were justifiable given the circumstances as given Israel"s attack on Gaza Hamas are almost venting anger. If Con could have provided the source for these Indian and French outlets I could inspect this evidence however I cannot as con has not. IDF accounts are generally used for these types of news stories which I can only guess would be used and they are, of course, unreliable in their evidence. Of course there may be some isolated incidents of this however no Gazans have claimed that they have been made unwilling human shields- . There may be some explanation in the fact that many houses belong to the Abu Jamaa clan meaning they feel safety in numbers and thus stick together however the afore mentioned fact that no Gazans have claimed they have been made human shields means that there clearly is no universal Hamas policy of using human shields. This renders the argument that there are two politicians who say the contrary invalid as they are clearly isolated in their view point. Ayman Taha- the spokesperson who was killed by Hamas, and who your quote mentions, was not killed for affiliating with Israel or for being outspokenly anti-war, he was killed for being an Egyptian spy. The corruption investigation into him at no point accuses him of extending his tongue which is the charge often levied to those who are activists. He is accused of corruption.. There are no recorded deaths for anti-war activism. That still which you used to show Hamas firing rockets from civilian areas was taken by the IDF who as I have said multiple times are not a reliable source There are 1 year sentences which have been doled out to those who criticise Palestinian authorities. Which while may seem indefensible, it is important to note that Hamas are trying to replicate the approval levels which Israel enjoy for the war. The 95% approval rates for the continuation of conflict- are impossible to reproduce. When Yitzhak Rabin signs an accord between Israel and Palestine he is assassinated by Ultra-nationalists. I would argue it is valid for Hamas to censor some people in order to maintain a high morale and high approval ratings. This has only happened on 2 occasions however. So it is not that hard to justify it if it is not being done on a large scale and they are only being made examples of. Israel to some degree have done the same as shown by the fact they arrested 14 anti- war demonstrators I mention that the Hamas charter is irrelevant as for example Hamas have been willing to accept a two state solution and peace if Israel accept their 10 demands. This goes against the Hamas charter and thus is not Hamas" current position as I said in my introduction. I think I have argued well that Hamas can be justified for their actions considering the disproportionate response by Israel. I must thank my opponent for this rare opportunity to argue about Palestine and Israel in a civil fashion and I urge you to support the proposition. Sources: http://www.timesofisrael.com... http://glz.co.il... http://www.breakingisraelnews.com...- http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.ynet.co.il... http://www.maannews.net... http://www.christianaid.org.uk... http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.haaretz.com... http://www.independent.co.uk... https://www.middleeastmonitor.com... http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.slideshare.net... - slide 22 http://www.theguardian.com...