Hamas are justified in their actions

Further Rebuttals Pro continues to state that "experts" such as those of the European Council on Foreign Relations have claimed that there is evidence lacking, however, I have already clearly outlined that Hamas leader Khaled Masaal (who is the billionaire referenced in round one) has also admitted responsibility for the killings. Though he disputed that not all of Hamas was aware, he clearly stated that Hamas members were the culprits. He went on to say: "Our view is that soldiers and settlers on the West Bank are aggressors, and they are illegally living in this occupied and stolen land. And the right to resist is the right of Palestinians."So again, Saleh al-Arouri is not only the only Hamas affiliate to admit to the killings. Mashaal is in fact the leader of the entire Hamas organization, not just one particular fraction. As for the tunnels, it was Pros original point that they were not used for weaponry, kidnapping or attacking of civilian areas. Which the three attempted attacks leading up to Operation Protective Edge obviously negate. They are directly within proximity of civilian communities as the attempts and photographic evidence shows. If Hamas did not intend to access civilian areas, why were such attempts made? I'll point out once more that these militants were fully armed with weaponry. A tunnel opening just 2 kilometres away from Sufa and other Israeli Kibbutzim: Concerning Hamas' firing of rockets before Israel made any arrests, indeed it is not "inaccurate". Hamas has in fact been firing rockets intermittently into Israel ever since it came to power and became the official government of Gaza. A number of rockets were fired into Israeli territory before any arrests. On March 5 2014 Israel had actually intercepted an entire ship containing dozens of long-range rockets that been smuggled from Iran. Again, this is prior to any arrests. The point is that purposely shooting at civilian areas is not "justified" and is legally considered a war crime. The only reason that Hamas does not cause higher casualties is because of the investment that Israel makes in protection of its civilian population, which includes numerous shelters, sirens, and the massively expensive Iron Dome System. Each rocket that gets intercepted costs literally thousands, particularly those of long range. LinksI'd first note to Pro that IDF sources used all displayed clear and supported evidence that is also referenced in other sources. The third link that Pro displays only shows the identities of Israeli soldiers unfortunately killed during Operation Protective Edge, with no additional statements or inclusion of evidence that supports Pros argument. As Pro uses an Arab source that is very evidently in strong support of Palestine, I could also use the same argument. However I'll further clarify that all IDF sources cited evidence is displayed. The fourth link by Pro does not provide any definitive proof that the IDF, or as Pro states: "Israel" did indeed shoot and kill a teenager. Moreover it does not inquire into the reasons why he potentially would've been shot. As many other examples show, the IDF generally only resorts to shooting when the individual is exhibiting violent behaviour, has weaponry, or is posing an actual threat themselves. The fifth link directly goes to Christian Aid and doesn't provide any conclusive fact or indication as to why Hamas is justified in their actions, which include all of those that I've stated in round one. I'd highlight that certain circumstances Christian Aid illustrates (such as the need to rebuild) are directly attributed to Hamas and its decision to fire rockets/missiles into Israeli territory and thus initiate conflict, as well as making three attempted armed infiltrations into Israeli villages. Things such as the requirement for Industry and Jobs, Farming, Power, Water and Sanitation, Health and Education are also exclusively under Hamas' control. As the official government of Gaza and the second richest terrorist organization in the world, the responsibility lies with Hamas in ensuring Industry, Education, etc. receives priority in Gaza and that the interests of all citizens are served, Again the link fails to support Pros argument in why Hamas is justified. It also deviates away from the fact that Israel delivers numerous aid into Gaza, even when conflict is occurring. During the Operation Protective Edge Israel in fact sent this into Gaza: -4.58 million liters of diesel for the power station in Gaza Strip, 1.73 million liters for UNRWA-9.8 million liters of fuel-4.26 million liters of gasoline for transportation-4,843 tons of gas for domestic needs It was also Israel that repaired the electricity system in Gaza which had been damaged by Hamas rocket fire. These Israeli repairs extend to 18 water supply repairs and and 7 communication repairs. Back to statements made by Hamas in relation to the killing of Israelis attending a synagogue in Jerusalem, Pro again does not explain exactly why they are "justified". I'll reiterate that these were merely civilians attending religious a service, not soldiers or anyone involved in Israeli politics. It would seem that the condemnation of any civilian killing is applied to the Palestinian side, but clearly not the Israeli one. As outlined in round two, there still remains the fact that over fifty Gaza citizens were killed by Hamas for holding anti-war protests and allegedly collaborating with Israel, which was of course later found to be untrue. As a government there is no valid reason for Hamas to kill civilians on the basis of exercising the right to protest and if conspirators are identified, clear evidence should be established and presented before any proceeding action is taken. As Hamas still continue to use their Charter and apply into their politics, Pros point is heavily contradicted. Additionally, the reason why Israel is currently not in favor of a two-state solution is because Hamas have explicitly made it clear that they do not, or would not, recognize it as a State. If Israel was to be recognized and tolerated as an official Jewish State, the possibility of two states would naturally be received with more openness. It would entirely negligent of Israel to agree to a two state solution when a number of political fractions within neighboring state have made it clear that they do not recognise it. Pro uses the example of the European Parliament removing Hamas off the terror blacklist, however Pro misses the point that this is temporary and has been cited only as procedural and technical problem by the Court. Due to character limit I cannot expound much further but I'd also like to thank Pro in allowing me the opportunity to debate this topic (which we both obviously have interest in) and also for providing full arguments. Sources: [15.] http://www.timesofisrael.com...[16.] http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org... [17.] http://www.idfblog.com... [18.] [19.] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[20.] http://mfa.gov.il... [21,] http://www.jta.org...[22.] http://www.jewishpress.com...[23.] http://www.cogat.idf.il...[24.] http://www.inquisitr.com...[25.] http://www.inquisitr.com...[26.] French citation: [27.] Indian citation: