The Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip was Justified (3rd attempt)

Thank you watchman, I'm looking forward to this debate. "My position is that Israel's decision to launch military attacks in the Gaza Strips against the terrorist group Hamas is justified." This is the main statement of my opponent's argument, which I have the burden of disproving, and he has the shared burden of proving. Justified in my mind says that it's a reasonable response to the actions taken against Israel. Obviously this is in regards to self defence. My opponent believes proportionality is irrelevant. I however believe the complete opposite, proportionality is one of the key area's that must be used to justify Israel's decision to invade Gaza. Put in more common terms, if someone punches me I can punch them back, because this is a reasonable, proportionate response in self defence. If someone punches me I cannot pull out a 12-gauge shotgun and shoot them in the head, because this isn't a reasonable, proportionate response. I will try and show that Israel's response was in no way proportional. "Any country who is attacked in this manner would do what they needed to do to crush the attackers thereby ensuring the safety of their citizens." This is, in fact, completely false. Let me take it to the extreme so we can see how this logic is faulty. If a Pakistani militant came onto American soil, pulled out a gun, and shot an American soldier, do you think this is grounds for American to launch a nuclear strike on Pakistan's capital? Of course not, any act of aggression against a country does not give it the right for unrestrained retaliation against the enemy, especially when that enemy is amongst a civilian population. "The fact is, Hamas is known to attempt to maximize the number of civilian deaths by intentionally launching their rockets from areas that are densely populated by civilians in order to provoke a response from Israel that will kill civilians" Firstly if Hamas was trying to maximize civilian deaths, they would simply go around and shoot their population. This is completely false. Secondly the onus is on the invading force to provide that a reasonable amount of civilian casualties occur. This brings us to the causality count. I don't expect myself and my opponent to agree on a firm number. Hamas claims that 1,300 were killed – with 1152 being civilians. Israel is claiming that 1200-1300 died with 700 being militants, and 250 being civilians (what they think the remaining 250 – 350 are I'm not sure). The only non-governmental body to give a body count is the Palestinian centre for human rights, which puts the death toll at 1284, with 894 being civilians, including 280 children and minors, 111 women. [1][2][3] The point in all this is that it clearly shows that compared to the deaths of 894 innocent people, in the period from 2001 until 2009, 15 people have been killed by Hamas rocket attacks into Gaza.[4] Let me say that again, 15 people killed over an 8 year period, and in retaliation for this latest attack (not even any previous incursions), 894 civilians were killed in response. Why is the Palestinian life worth less than the Israeli? How can Israel say that it's proportionate to attack and cause 5960% more casualties than the action they are responding to? Now we'll get to the alternatives. Quite simply the Middle East problem is a very long and complex one. I and I doubt my opponent is going to pretend there are any easy answers. I think the only reasonable action to take is through diplomacy, which will hopefully lead to a longer stable peace. The common counter argument is that Israel has a right to defend itself. Let me ask you this. If I'm throwing pebbles at a police officer, at what point is he justified in shooting me? I think it's hard to argue that at any stage that extreme action is justified in response. Does that mean do nothing in the mean time? Basically yes. If Israel can't guarantee a reasonably low number of civilian casualties in response to the actions of Hamas, then yes I do expect it to take no action. The best way is to continue down the diplomatic path and try and find a resolution that way. This is also simply talking about the casualties, not mentioning the people who have been left in the humanitarian crisis as a result. 400,000 people are now in the situation where they have no running water. Another 35,000 are being sheltered by the UN, with 50,800 homeless.[5] This is directly attributable to the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Why should so many people be put into this situation when the vast majority are innocent Palestinians trying to get on with their lives? My opponent also blames Hamas for the conflict, for breaking the cease-fire, essentially saying that if they surrendered there would be no reason for Israel to invade. To that I could also respond that if Israel lifted the blockade on the west bank, and moved out of Israel the fighting would stop also, but that doesn't seem any more likely an option. The summary though is this; the killing of a civilian population cannot be justified because of whichever side started the conflict. It could actually be argued that Israel started the whole thing by its creation, but I'm going to have to say this is probably getting off topic, and we'll keep the discussion to the current invasion. Finally civilian casualties are not acceptable simply because Hamas fighters are sheltering in the same building. I used this analogy in another debate. Imagine if a murderer ran into a school in the United States, and held the classroom hostage. He then begins to fire at the police from out the window. Are the police justified in blowing up the building, hostages and all, in an effort to minimize the police force casualties, ignoring the hostages? I think we can all imagine the outrage if something like this occurred. In conclusion I'll highlight my main points. Proportional response is actually key to justify the invasion of Gaza. In no way is the response of 894 civilian deaths, 50,800 homeless and 400,000 people left without running water proportionate to the 15 Israeli deaths caused over an 8 year period by the rockets they are trying to stop. Therefore, the Israeli invasion was not justified. The onus is on the attacking force to ensure that a reasonable number of civilian casualties occur, with 894 being killed, 50,800 left homeless and 400,000 people left without running water, I don't think this burden has been met. Therefore, the Israeli invasion was not justified. Civilian deaths are not excusable simply because a militant was in the same building. As a result you cannot say that you are minimising civilian casualties when you simply blow up the whole building with a tank shell ignoring in the civilians inside. I'd also state that there have been plenty of other occurrences when there most likely was not any militant force inside at all. Therefore, the Israeli invasion was not justified. I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate; I hope it can be a fruitful discussion. [1]- http://www.cbsnews.com... [2]- http://www.news.com.au... [3]- http://haaretz.com... [4]- http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]- http://news.bbc.co.uk...