Israel is on the short end of the stick

He thinks that I have not refuted his arguments, but I would like to remind him that he is neither judge nor jury. 1. The only flaw here is my opponent not looking at the reality on the ground. He talks of red herrings, but gives no evidence of SYSTEMIC discrimination against Arab women and children. Sadly, the security situation forces Israel to place some limits on freedom of movement. However, medical needs are permitted to get treatment where appropriate, often in Israel. Hundreds, if not thousands, of permits are granted yearly to Gazans for medical trips. [0] However, there have been dozens of abuses when terrorists trying to kill Israelis enter on medical permits. This leads to more restrictions and the basis for permits to begin with. Israel must inspect anyone that enters its territory, as any country in the world does. Next, my opponent alleges that my videos could be staged. If they are staged, isnt it possible that alleged abuses are staged? Might the entire conflict be staged? Unless my opponent has some way to prove the two videos are staged, they should be taken as is. This site permits videos, which can add context and support, and our agreed rules didnt forbid them 2. I didnt make any ad hominem against the UN. I explained how the votes against Israel are made up. The UN is no more legitimate in this regard than two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. Would anyone accept the legitimacy of that vote? (There are 57 countries in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. ) If you still dont see the lack of the UNs legitimacy, during Cast Lead, Sri Lanka carried out a similar, but more extensive operation against the Tamil Tigers. Over 20,000 civilians were killed. Hardly a peep from the UN and no special inquiry. [1] Earlier this year, North Korea torpedoed a South Korean ship, killing 46. Again, not a peep from the UN (and the SecGen is Korean! ). [2] The UN is clearly negligent for real crimes and blatantly anti-Israel. Amnesty International has its own problems as well. The American Jewish Congress has found that AI has no idea how the laws of war work. The laws of war are to restrict behavior in war, not make it impossible. [3] Two officials from the group NGO Monitor have found that AI has an obsession with Israel, while ignoring the 2008 South Ossetia War. [4] Prominent attorney Alan Dershowitz has criticized AI for its comparison of Israel to Sudan, where over 300,000 were killed in the past few years and millions displaced. [5] Again, in the past 90 years, about 45,000 Arabs have died in the Arab-Israel conflict. There simply is no comparison here, considering most of these Arabs have died in wars or conflicts they instigated. The head of AI Finland called Israel a "scum state", but was unable to name another country in the world that way,[6] such as Congo, Sudan, China, Sri Lanka, etc. As for JATO, what gives them any credibility or reliability here exactly? Anyone can just make a website. [7] 3. My opponent for some reason thinks that because Goldstone is Jewish somehow gives him all the credibility in the world. Perhaps he would be interested in reading about a Palestinian who supports Israel and thinks all the Arabs should move to Jordan. [8] He then goes on to claim that Israel is one of the largest crimes ever committed against humanity. Is my opponent here seriously arguing that 45,000 Arab deaths over 90 years in any way remotely compares to the Holocaust, the numerous genocides in Africa, Anfal against the Kurds (4x as many Kurds were killed in 1 year as in this entire conflict), the Khmer Rouge, and so on? How is it a crime for people to move to a land they have historical roots to and then defend themselves against xenophobic locals and imperialistic entities surrounding the land? They were simply moving to the land. Nothing more. Yet as early as 1920, the Arabs were attacking the Jews. [9] My opponent tries to compare this conflict to the Holocaust. The Holocaust was not self-defense. The Nazis didnt even claim that. I also ask him where the gas chambers, mass graves, and actual concentration camps (Gaza doesnt count--it has plenty of food, people can leave if they have a legit reason, as well as toys, shops, horses, surfing, resorts, etc) are. [10] a. I had thought that commonly known facts need not be sourced, such as the Battle of Gaza. I understand sourcing to support an interpretation, but it clearly occurred and isnt disputed by anyone. [11] I didnt say that Hamas seized it from Israel; they seized it from the PA, which is documented in sources in [11]. As for the bans, my opponent apparently didnt read my argument. I didnt say banning chocolate was ok, but that chocolate appears to be banned for several reasons. Concrete is usable for military purposes. Hamas has committed acts of war against Israel by firing rockets and by abducting an Israeli soldier. Thus, the blockade is perfectly legal. b. Again my opponent is misrepresenting what Ive said. I didnt blame the deaths on Hamas rockets. I said that the rockets provoked the war that lead to the deaths. Next, he condemns my source for being Zionist, while his sources are clearly anti-Zionist. The site looked at lists of civilian deaths and found the same people on the Hamas website. The helicopter video is meant to show how Hamas dresses as civilians. I said I cannot justify the deaths because war is war. All I can do is explain them. As it turns out, Hamas has admitted 600-700 fighters were killed. [12] I wish to inform the voters that my opponent is lying in regard to my 5th source in Round 2: Arabic cant be posted here, so I refer my opponent and the voters to Google Docs: . http://is.gd... And if my opponent still thinks Gaza is poorly supplied, he can talk to a Danish journalist who actually went there. [13] Yet again, my opponent misrepresents me. This argument is a parody of the conflict, with the pro-Arab side misrepresenting everything. I said twice that 9 people died on the flotilla and were killed by Israelis. But I said that they had attacked the Israelis first, which is why live fire was used. Opponent source 12 doesnt prove his argument at all; it documents both sides. The al Jazeera video claims that there was live fire and a white flag, but fails to show either. In fact, Ive heard about this white flag, but never seen any photo of it. My source 11 doesnt prove anything that my opponent said that I didnt agree with. For some reason, he thinks everything supports him. 4.1 UN Res 194 states "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date". This does not grant any right of return, nor does it specify Arabs (there were Jewish refugees too). 2. There is no occupation. In 1948, Israel was refounded in the Jewish area of the UN partition plan. No Arab state was founded in the Arab areas. Jordan, Egypt and others invaded. After the war, Israel, Egypt, and Jordan gained land. There was nothing about 'occupation' during Jordanian/Egyptian rule. Since Israel took the land in a defensive war, it definitely cant be considered an occupier, and has a more legal claim. Further, Israel has fully withdrawn from Gaza. 3. Jewish towns are not illegal. Jews have lived the region for centuries. Suddenly Jordan rules it for 19 years and they are illegal? 4. Yes they do, but that doesnt mean they can kill Israeli civilians on purpose. 0 . http://is.gd... 1 . http://is.gd... . http://is.gd... . http://is.gd... 2 . http://is.gd... . http://is.gd... . http://is.gd... 3 . http://is.gd... 4 . http://is.gd... . http://is.gd... 5 . http://is.gd... 6 . http://is.gd... 7 . http://is.gd... 8 . http://is.gd... 9 . http://is.gd... (multi sources) 10 . http://is.gd... 11 . http://is.gd... (m/s) 12 . http://is.gd... . http://is.gd... . http://is.gd... 13 . http://is.gd...