An international sanctuary for victims of famine and war should be established in Israel

My opponent did not question the following points: *Israel is a stable, democratic, and free country *Israel is not exclusively Jewish *Israel is comparative economically with the European Union, South Korea, and New Zealand, and comparative educationally with Canada, the US, and Japan *An influx of poor, uneducated people would harm the Israeli economy and education system *The government of Israel is secular and would likely oppose higher taxes Therefore, I assume he either agrees with them or does not contest them. My opponent is correct in his assertion that I think Israel could become host to an international refugee center - however, this is only insofar as it is the only country in the region that is remotely capable of doing so. He forgets that I say such an idea, while well-intentioned, is not feasible due to several issues. To say I support such an undertaking, at this time, is incorrect. My opponent asserts that "The democratically-elected representatives of the people of Gaza and the West Bank do not condone acts of terrorism". This runs in stark contrast to the charters and constitutions of Hamas and Fatah, which express otherwise. Additionally, Palestinians as a whole are, at most, divided on the issue of civilian targeting. According to a 2012 poll of Palestinians, 57.3% in the Gaza Strip supported bombings against Israeli civilian targets. This number is only 25.3% in the West Bank, but this is still quite high. On average, 37.3% support bombing or suicide bombing against Israel. [1] Simply put, these numbers show an unacceptable support by Palestinians of targeting toward civilians - and this support is followed through by actions. Human Rights Watch, an organization that has been accused of having an anti-Israeli bias,[2] said that during the recent conflict between Israel and Gaza militants: *"Palestinian armed groups in Gaza violated the laws of war during the November 2012 fighting by launching hundreds of rockets toward population centers in Israel" *"The rocket attacks, including the first from Gaza to strike the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem areas, killed three Israeli civilians, wounded at least 38, several seriously, and destroyed civilian property. " *"Rockets that fell short of their intended targets in Israel apparently killed at least two Palestinians in Gaza and wounded others" *"Armed groups repeatedly fired rockets from densely populated areas, near homes, businesses, and a hotel, unnecessarily placing civilians in the vicinity at grave risk from Israeli counter-fire. " Sarah Lee Whitson of Human Rights watch said that "Palestinian armed groups made clear in their statements that harming civilians was their aim". [3] These violent acts have shown a disrespect, not only for Israeli life but for Palestinian life - these rockets killed Palestinians and placed them at severe risk for rocket fire. Not only that, the attacks were targeted entirely at civilians - not the Israeli military. Targeting civilians, regardless of reason, is a blatant violation of international law. [3] These facts clearly disprove my opponent's assertion that Palestinians don't support violence against civilians - significant numbers do, and many have decided to act on this belief. My opponent also notes that "it is most unlikely that Palestinian activists would target fellow refugees, many of whom are likely to be Muslim brothers and sisters, they would have nothing to gain from it but everything to lose in terms of international public relations. What would be their motive? Why not aim valuable rockets at Israeli military targets instead? ". This is an important question. However, as demonstrated above, civilians, not the military, are being targeted. Approximately 20% of Israelis (1,573,000) are Muslim[4], meaning there is a one-in-five chance that a civilian killed by terrorists would be Muslim. The matter of fact is that they already have no issue targeting potential Muslims - if they are killed, after all, wouldn't they just go to paradise? Similarly, terrorists have no regard for public image - terrorists destroyed the WTC complex, killing 3,000 people. This received universal outcry of verbal support for the United States, even from long-standing adversaries like Cuba, North Korea, and Russia. The only major support for the attacks came from the Palestinians, many of whom danced in the streets in celebration. [5] Several dozen innocent Muslims were killed in the attacks. [6] Keep in mind that early death total estimates were far higher the actual total, with the early NYPD estimate being 6,659. [7] This lack of respect for life is a major reason why placing refugees in the path of fire is not right. Until, or if, the Palestinian-Israeli issue is settled, hosting poor people in disputed borders and in the possible line of rocket fire. I do not question my opponent's assertion on cost. There are many, many charitable givers among the major religions and such an undertaking would receive support from at least some of them. To conclude, the idea behind this is not bad. However, there are severe faults with it - economic and educational harm to Israel, but most importantly the targeting of innocent civilians by terrorists. From my perspective, adding thousands of potential targets for terrorism is not feasible until such a time as the dispute is settled and the land would be free from attack. Thank you. References: 1: . http://www.haaretz.com... 2: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 3: . http://www.hrw.org... 4: . http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... 5: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6: . http://islam.about.com... 7: . http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 8: . http://www.israeltoday.co.il...