Israel is on the short end of the stick

This conflict is enormously broad and impossible to cover adequately in 24000 characters, but we have both done the best we can. I thank my opponent for his summary of his arguments and view of the debate. However, I strongly disagree with his conclusion. THEMES Context: The crucial takeaway here should be to view the conflict in context. I have argued this the entire time. Deaths happened in this conflict, but I have worked to explain why they happened. For Cast Lead, I stated that the deaths could have been prevented if Hamas did not shoot rockets at Israel. For the flotilla, I stated that the deaths could have been prevented if the activists did not violently take up arms against the IDF. I stated that this whole conflict could have been prevented if the Arabs had not taken up arms against Jews in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and so on. So, the conflict must be viewed in the full context. Those against Israel selectively pick through history to provide only what supports them and will not accept any other explanation but Israeli brutality. My opponent is no exception. To continue the importance of context, the organizations my opponent has cited have reasons why they came to the conclusions they did. This is not an ad hominem, this is a look at the root cause. My opponent wants you to simply accept whatever he provides, without looking at how it got from its origin to here. The vote on this debate can be decided very simply: If you think two wolves and a sheep can fairly decide upon dinner, vote pro. If not, vote con. The votes of the UN are decided on a broader version of that, which explains why the votes appear to oppose Israel. Utilitarianism: I have demonstrated that Israel provides a net benefit to the region and that without it, things would be worse off. If not for this conflict, there could be more benefit. Israels hands are tied by its need to protect itself and Arab intransigence. Why are pregnant women supposedly forced to give birth at checkpoints? The question really should be WHY are women trying to enter Israel to give birth? What is in Israel that they want? Justification: As I have explained, the past 90 years have been an endless cycle of the same two events. Arabs provoke; Jews/Israel react. Thus, Israel is continuously justified in its actions. Think about how you would feel if rockets bombarded your houses regularly. Think about how you would feel if you were driving down the road and were pelted with rocks. Then, think about how you would feel if third parties tried to give material support to those committing such attacks on you. How would you react and ask your government to react? Truth: This conflict has taught me about the concept of truth. There can be two opposite things that are true. Of course, this is not quite true itself. Only one thing can happen, but in this conflict, so many people are certain that one side or the other is correct. Which is it? My opponent is correct in asserting that this debate has come to epitomize the conflict. The anti-Israel side frequently obfuscates the truth as I have shown with the flotilla, the Cast Lead death tolls, living conditions in Gaza, and so on. My opponent makes a tactical error that should cost him the battle. He lied. I presented the proof above. I hope it is acceptable to repost it here for easier reference. I presented this source (. http://is.gd...), which can be translated with Google Translate. Arabic characters can not be displayed here, so I had to create a Google Doc (. http://is.gd...) to do so. You can explore this yourself. I claim the source describes Gaza. My opponent asserts that it is Jerusalem. He knows that few here can read Arabic and is hoping you trust him and do not look yourself. I have made it easy to determine who is speaking the truth. If my opponent can not even tell the truth on a very clear source, how can anything else he presented be certain? His entire argument has lost integrity. Misrepresentation is another aspect of truth epitomized in this debate, again hearkening back to context. My opponent frequently has misrepresented the conflict, the reality, events, and my arguments. He made conclusions of my arguments that you can compare to your own view of what I said and use that to weigh your vote. The pro-Arab side is often misrepresenting facts. I have shown this several times. Take that into consideration. CONCLUSION The problem in this conflict is that the anti-Israel side can easily make accusations and create short sound bytes and video clips that are easy to accept. It is very easy to say FREE PALESTINE! It is much harder to say you support Israel. It takes Zionists pages and pages to show how these claims are false or heavily skewed. My opponent can make plethora of claims that each take several paragraphs to refute. I provided sources that can be used to answer most, if not all, questions about several of my opponents claims (re: Goldstone, flotilla . .. ). Use these to help you understand the conflict. So where are we now? The most cynical response is to shrug in frustration and walk away. Many do so. My opponent asserts that his claims were not refuted. I wonder if anything I could have said would refute him. Space constraints prohibit full refutations, so I have provided sources that work to refute claims about Gaza, Goldstone, the flotillas, etc. I have provided some examples, context, and sources that work to refute his claims. My opponent attacks my sources without any reasoning behind it other than "Jewish" or "Zionist". If Zionists and Jews cannot be trusted, then why did my opponent start a debate with a Jewish Zionist? Some will now mention my atheism, but that does not matter; I identify as a Jew culturally and ethnically. On that note, why does this atheist support Israel? I clearly do not think this land was ordained by God to Jews or have religious reasons to ignore the truth. So what do I see outside religion that causes me to support Israel? Broadly, why is such a seemingly small conflict with only 45,000 deaths over 90 years of sporadic wars gripping the world so fiercely? Why is everyone obsessed with Israel? What does that mean for this debate and your vote? In summation, voters should examine and understand the context within this debate and the conflict itself lives. They should look at the utilitarian benefits of Israel. They should look at why Israel acts the way it does. Finally, they should understand what is truth and how it has been represented here and in the conflict. This is a strongly partisan issue, but I hope the voters can crack away from their strongheld beliefs and look from a neutral perspective. Many people have switched sides in both directions on flimsy and strong evidence. Let us all hope for no vote-bombing and no sniping that prevents a fair andjust appraisal of this debate.