Israel is on the short end of the stick

Thanks again. I'll be taking a slightly different approach, beginning with observations. ---Content--- o Observations o Refutations o Conclusion o Sources --------------- o Observations 1. My opponent is being extremely unfair regarding the issue of sources. When I provide multiple sources (UN, Amnesty International, JATO) all he does is claim that their views are biased, and doesn't refute their claims. When he provides sources/videos, I don't drop it at "it could be staged" or "they are zionist"; I proceed to refute their claims. For example, after I claimed that his website is zionist, I said "All it shows is a cohesive effort by an unidentified group of people (but clearly, Palestinian, as they speak in Arabic) firing at an Israeli helicopter, which is later shown to apparently be firing missiles." I turned the argument, by showing that this video does nothing but prove Israel is violently oppressive. As a result, he ends up evading my whole argument. He never addressed a single UN resolution, or the 4th Geneva Convention. --> This costs a conduct point, as it is an abusive sort of debate; I can't do anything about that. 2. The Utilitarian standard continues to be ignored. I provided it as the only way to weigh arguments in the debate; thus, we end up with no mechanism with which to compare my arguments to my opponent's if he doesn't apply the standard. o Refutations 1. Basically, my opponent objects that there is no "systemic" discrimination, i.e. Israel discriminates against everyone, not JUST Arabs. I would argue that, First, it doesn't matter whether it is systemic or not, it is still discrimination, which clearly isn't satisfying utilitarian doctrines. Second, my very first source/argument in round 2 explains the deaths as being STRICTLY Palestinian; also, the obituary provided illustrates that ZERO Israelis died in the final third of 2000 as compared to HUNDREDS of Palestinians. Is this not clearly systemic? Finally, "Israeli actions are aimed at reducing the number of Palestinians entitled to live in Jerusalem" [1]. The article explains that Israel is covertly ethnically cleansing the region. Regarding discrimination, we can look back to the Goldstone report. I realize my opponent claims that it has been debunked; but we can look to another source which upholds its integrity. When looking through the Goldstone report, it turns out that "Indictments and disciplinary actions stemming from Israel's Gaza offensive are raising a prospect many might find unsettling: the controversial Goldstone report may have been on the right track" [2]. The cases made against soldiers of the IDF literally "have Israel wondering". After acknowledging the same accusations my opponent made of Goldstone, the article goes on to explain ""The military is finding out that some of what Goldstone said is true, even though no one wants to admit it," said Gershon Baskin, a political consultant and former Labor Party advisor. "This should indicate that there needs to be deeper investigation."". Also, in the article, it is explained how there was a sniper who deliberately fired into a crowd raising a white flag; there is no reason for my opponent to continue attacking Goldstone's credibility. He continues to detract from the veracity of the entire debate by his attack on sources. I request my opponent actually refute mine and Goldstone's CLAIMS now. 2. Again, not a single claim has been refuted. Just red herrings about the Tamil Tigers and South Ossetia. Extend again. 3. Cross apply #1, above. a. My opponent is okay with Israel banning concrete, even though they don't own Gaza, to prevent homemade missiles from being built; meanwhile, Israel purchases F35s [3] with impunity; has military SURPLUS, to the point where they can sell with free shipping [4]; air force, ground army, navy... [5]. Frankly, the double standard my opponent is maintaining against Palestine is laughable. Literally. I laughed. b. No argument here; death count is disproportionately against Palestine anyways, as is military funding [6]. Regarding the source not saying al-Quds in Arabic... I can't believe I'm going through the pain to do this. [7] Like I said, I can read Arabic. "I wish to inform the voters that my opponent is lying..." Ha! Yea, right. Conduct? As for the flotilla, like I said, the video evidence has been edited to support Israel in 99% of cases, as proves the source provided in my last round. 4. Jewish refugees (who have been banned from Israel) are anti-zionists. [8] Read about Norman Finkelstein's ban from entering Israel; it was strictly political. Meanwhile, who granted Israel the right to determine who can return, and when? "Do you understand that many Palestinian children will never be able to visit those cities that were once, not long ago, part of Palestine under the British rule? Do you realise that many of these youngsters will never be able to visit the cities of their grandfathers, grandmothers, and ancestors, not only becuase such free travel is denied them but due to the fact that many Palestinian cities were RAZED TO THE GROUND and no longer exist?" [9] "There is no occupation" my opponent claims. Which is ridiculous, considering that there were people living there under international administration, as per the terms of the Sykes-Picot treaty, which my opponent and other pro-Israel advocates conveniently ignore. [10] Jewish towns ARE illegal. "Jews have lived in the region for centuries"... okay? They never kicked out Palestinians until after they were sent there from Europe by European powers. Clearly, my opponent didn't read into the resolutions written or the Geneva Conventions, or the agreements about halting all settlements. [11] "Yes they do [kick Palestinians out of their homes]". Point made. The instigator of the violence is the one who is at fault, not the one who is defending the livelihood of himself and his children. [12] What is an innocent woman and her children supposed to do, heart broken? I'll let my opponent attempt to reconcile that with utilitarianism. o Conclusion Very simply put, Israel and utilitarianism are incompatible, as are Israel and human rights. The resolution is affirmed. [13, 14, 15] o Sources [1] http://www.washington-report.org... [2] http://articles.latimes.com... [3] http://www.israeli-occupation.org... [4] http://www.israelmilitary.com... [5] http://www.globalsecurity.org... [6] http://www.ifamericansknew.org... [7] http://i52.tinypic.com... [8] http://madamepickwickartblog.com... [9] http://www.usefulwork.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://www.globalsecurity.org... [12] http://www.paltelegraph.com... [13] http://www.blackcommentator.com... [14] http://deskofbrian.com... [15] http://3.bp.blogspot.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtu...