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

My opponent presents an interesting hypothesis, that Israel should be used as a sanctuary for victims of famine and war. However, there are some serious flaws with this idea that undermine the good intent. Unlike most other countries in the region, Israel is a stable, democratic country with good relations with much of the Western world. This is no doubt due to the unique nature of Israel as a Jewish state, the only such country in the world - most other Middle-eastern countries are predominately, if not exclusively, Muslim, and are governed by a set of laws incompatible with much of the modern world. In contrast, Israel, while Jewish, runs under a mostly secular system, will full religious liberty and freedom. It is host to a large Muslim community as well as significant Christian and Druze communities, as well as members of the Bahai faith and the only significant Samaritan population on Earth. In fact, Israel is ranked as only 'free' country in the Middle East by Freedom House, a US-based firm. [1] Israel is also host to the world's 26th-largest GDP, with average of $31,467 per person; only slightly below European Union, South Korea, and New Zealand. [2] No doubt a major reason for this economic stability is the strong education system, the second-most educated in the world,behind only Canada and ahead of Japan and the US according to a 2012 OCED report. [3] A massive influx of poor, understated people who lack the basic skills needed to succeed in such a technologically advanced country would cause significant harm to the Israeli economy and education system. My opponent does make an interesting point in regards to charity. However, the government of Israel is secular - the state is Jewish as is culture (similar to how much of western culture is Christian), but the government is not. [4] Currently, the government is controlled by a conservative coalition that would likely be opposed to tax increases for such a work. The Palestinians would surely not be willing to contribute to this. I am not going to get into an argument over Palestinian refugees, because this debate does not involve them. However, a significant factor that would make Israel a bad location for a refugee sanctuary is terrorism. The Palestinians are governed by Hamas, whose charter wants to destroy Israel and kill the Jews [5], and Fatah, whose goal is "Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence" and whose Constitution says "Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine. .. Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated". [6] Clearly, these groups are NOT friendly to the idea of using Israel for anything other than what they desire, and they fully intend to use armed rebellion to target Israel and annihilate the 'Zionists'. The addition of hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions of people would simply give more targets for these radical regimes to launch rockets at or slaughter in suicide attacks. This would directly affect peace talks with the Palestinians. In conclusion, the idea presented by Pro is not without merit. However, many key factors such as a sure weakening of the economy, difficulty in gaining funds, and the hostility of Palestine towards anything Jewish would prevent it from succeeding. References: 1: . http://www.jpost.com... 2: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4: . http://israelipalestinian.procon.org... 5: . http://archive.adl.org... 6: . http://en.wikipedia.org...