Israel's Current Actions in Gaza are Justified

Dear Con, Hello. As we near the end of our debate, I wish to provide some final rebuttals to your arguments, and deny that your Burden of Proof has been fulfilled (as it hasn't). Please notice that my main ideas and opinions are located in my previous arguments. You notice that I have used the Hamas statement about the extermination of Jews twice. I only used the quote the second time because it appeared that you completely missed it in your previous argument. You failed to recognize the desire of the Hamas organization for the genocide of the Jewish people. Yes, the mission statement of Hamas is religiously biased, though no, the core of this argument is not a religious one. We are not debating whether the Islamic or Jewish religion is more accurate. I am not angered with the Hamas statement because they want to specifically murder Jews, rather, I am angered because they want to commit genocide whatsoever. Whether Hamas wanted to kill Jews, Christians, atheists, blacks, whites, Americans, or any other specific group of people, genocide is uncalled for in any situation, and that is why I am angered with the Hamas organization. This is not a religiously based conflict. Though it may be for Hamas because Israel is a nation of Jewish people, Israel is not participating in the war for religious reasons. Israel, though majority Jewish, is not using its religion as an excuse for its actions in Gaza. Rather, Israel's actions in Gaza are taking place solely to defend its people. Israel is not targeting Hamas because it is Muslim, rather Israel is targeting Hamas because Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Therefore, as this is not a religiously based conflict (Israel is acting in defense and for non-religious reasons), my opponent's burden of proof is not fulfilled. The core of the issue is not religious, and Israel, acting ONLY for its defense and not (as my opponent accuses) for religious reasons, is the more righteous cause in the conflict. Furthermore, my opponent himself admits that 'Gaza has always been the initiator between the two sides, and Israel is just defending (itself).' My opponent, in this sense, is admitting his side's own wrongdoing, and as his religiously-charged argument is invalid (see above), he has basically given me the debate. His burden of proof is unfulfilled, as the conflict, which is purely defense on Israel's side, is nonreligious. My opponent argues that 'it's difficult, if not impossible to argue which side is in the right, because you would first need to decide which religion is in the right'. However, as Israel is pursuing the conflict for nonreligious reasons (I can't stress this enough), we do not need to first decide which religion is'right' before ending the debate. Hamas terrorists, who are willing to commit an act of genocide against an opposing group (no matter which type), are obviously wrong in the current situation, and Israel has every right to defend itself and fight Gaza. I do not need to defend Judaism in my argument, rather, I need to defend Israel's want for protection against an enemy. However, as Hamas is holding a religiously-based fight, my opponent does need to prove the righteousness of Islam in order to win. Overall, my opponent's burden of proof has NOT been fulfilled, and therefore, I am still in the running for the winning of this debate. My opponent himself admitted that my defense argument is valid, and I have just proven him wrong in the argument of religion. Israel does not fight in the name of Judaism (rather, in the name of justice/defense) and can therefore have justified actions in other aspects. I look forward to what he can muster up in his next argument. Thank you, and good luck!