Hamas is more at fault for the current suffering of Palestinians than Israel.

4R1NRC: On Yassim, and the Creation of Hamas Can we ignore history, and focus about the present only? That would be like the study of Vietnam excluding the Vietnam War, or that of Russia excluding the Soviet Union. Whilst the opponent may claim that I am talking about a different time period, one cannot talk about North Korea in its current status quo without talking about the Korean War. Nevertheless, the opponent is says that I have simply suggested that Israel indeed could have prevented the creation of Hamas. Perhaps he needs more proofs (and more reports) An excerpt from a daily newspaper, Koteret Rashit, seems to prove that Israel has donated to Yassim's Islamic Charity: "The Islamic associations (Yassim's Charity) had been supported and encouraged by the Israeli military authority...They [the Islamic associations] were authorized to receive money payments from abroad" [1] Another commentator, Robert Dreyfuss stated that: "Beginning in 1967 through the late 1980s, Israel helped the Muslim Brotherhood establish itself in the occupied territories. It assisted Ahmed Yassin, the leader of the Brotherhood, in creating Hamas, betting that its Islamist character would weaken the PLO" [2] Andrew Higgins, a journalist, also recorded in an interview with an Israeli Official that: "Israel's military-led administration in Gaza looked favorably on the paraplegic cleric, who set up a wide network of schools, clinics, a library and kindergartens. Sheikh Yassin formed the Islamist group Mujama al-Islamiya, which was officially recognized by Israel as a charity and then, in 1979, as an association. Israel also endorsed the establishment of the Islamic University of Gaza, which it now regards as a hotbed of militancy." [3] There is no more doubt that Israel, at least partly, was responsible for the creation of Hamas. Apart from this, the opponent is strawman-ing entire chunks of my arguments; I used the Iranian Revolution in 1979 to compare it with what Israel did to Hamas. Albeit the opponent raises valid objections to my analogy, the opponent still misunderstands that we are talking about the creation and the spawning of each organization. In this, we see more similarities; the Shah of Iran was secular. Since 1924, secularism has been a state policy for many years, and went on until the overthrow of the Shah. Nevertheless, if the United States did not develop sectarian sentiments (via sending CIA agents into the country), perhaps Iran might have been a democracy by now. This is the same situation with Israel. The PLO was a social democratic secular organization; albeit extreme, it was not as extreme as Hamas, and would have (at least) negotiated with Israel for a one-state resolution in the area. On the Question: Why does it matter if Israel was trying to dismantle a secular organization? This is seemingly abnormal question to ask; Israel does not want peace. It would seem much more sense, would it not, to talk with non-extremists than extremists? Albeit the PLO can be considered extremist freedom fighters, Israel would have fared better negotiating with them than the Hamas. The opponent has also stated that since Israel has done nothing to help Hamas’ election in 2006, Israel did not create Hamas; firstly this is an illogical statement. Secondly, it is clear that Israel wanted the PLO back; they pressured America and Palestine to quickly organize an election, seeing that this would restore Fatah’s power. However, when Hamas took the poll, they had to start killing and wiping Hamas. This argument is based upon the postulate that Israel was partly responsible for the creation of Hamas, so (again) if the opponent affirms the resolution, he still has to face this dilemma. 4R2NRC: Weapons and Attack Since the opponent has focused on only the “current suffering” we shall indeed talk about the current suffering. Let us first remind ourselves of the first aggressor; the Israeli Authority. Firstly, after reports of the kidnapped teenagers reached the Hamas President of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, he agreed to cooperate with the Israelis, condemning the attack and kidnappings. [4] Albeit Mahmoud is part of the Fatah; Hamas also denied any involvement in the attacks [5]. In the face of the lack of evidence, retaliations were committed by the Israeli Authority; after launching a massive crack (Operation Brother’s Keep) against Hamas, whilst still having no evidence that Hamas killed the three teens, Hamas was quick to respond. This was when Hamas started launching attacks, mortar and Qassam rockets, upon the enemy. The opponent has a problem with me justifying each attacks and acts of martyrdom; however, is it not clear that when a country is at the feet of Imperialism, they have to do everything to protect their freedom and dignity? Quoting Francis Fannon: “For a colonized people the most essential value, because the most concrete, is first and foremost the land: the land which will bring them bread and, above all, dignity.” Palestine is at the feet of Israel; Hamas is not doing the suffering. The Palestinian people elected them, and they are only protecting the dignity of their own people! It is Israel who is inflicting all the suffering on the Palestinians. As accordingly to the above paragraph, Israel first attacked Hamas due to accusations that they committed the murder of three Israeli teens; Hamas responded via launching attacks, and now Israel is launching sorties of sorties of attacks against Palestine. Whilst the opponent says that “70 people” have died, I object. The opponent seems to accept my figure of 2,000 people; let me remind all sides that in these 2,000 people who have perished, only 200 of them are from an armed group (not necessarily Hamas). [6] Israel is deliberately attacking citizens, not Hamas fighters. With this being said, one must now see that Israel has taken barely any notice of attacking any places; if the opponent has problems with me justifying suicide attacks, then I have a problem with him justifying the bombings of UN refugee camps. Firstly, there is no possible way that Hamas could have stored weapons in a UN refugee camp. These camps were set up for only days before being bombed by the Israelis; secondly, even if they did, then they would have to have acted accordingly to the Geneva Convention. The opponent seemingly drops my case when he says that “these hospitals provide Hamas with a rocket storage” Does the opponent not see that the Geneva Convention bars all nations, including Israel, to bomb these buildings? The violation of human rights is never justified; the violation of treaties in the name of imperialism is also never justified. HENCEFORTH, the opponent can try to justify Israel’s actions, but he can never do so. The opponent also states that under international law, Israel is allowed to defend itself; this I do not refute. But under international law, is Israel allowed to shell a weaker nation on the basis of racial and religious hatred? This is the real reason behind Israel’s arrogant actions, apparently. It was ISRAEL who started this war (Operation Brother’s Keep). It was ISRAEL who launched seven attacks on UN refugee camps. It was ISRAEL who randomly ordered sorties of planes to carpet bomb the Palestinians. Now I am not an antisemite, albeit I might appear to be. But Israel’s actions are simply disgusting; they have superior weaponry, more troops, and more international support, yet they created an organization to combat reconciliation, and they have repeatedly launched attacks on this organization they created. Israel does not want peace; Israel wants war. Israel does not want reconciliation; Israel wants total destruction. Israel does not want life for Palestinians; Israel wants genocide for them. In Conclusion: P1. Israel created Hamas in a bid to stop the PLO; if Hamas were still responsible for the many deaths in Palestine, then Israel would have to be more responsible as it did aid Sheikh Yassim in the creation of Hamas This is proven by the fact that Israeli authorities encouraged Yassim’s charity to expand and also due to the fact that Israel did not force Yassim’s charity to close down after finding a cache of weapons P2. Israel Incited Operation Protective Edge, and has violated Geneva This is proven by the fact that Israel started shelling Gaza, even when an abundant amount of evidence shows that Hamas took no part in the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers. They have violated the Geneva Convention and this has incurred suffering to the Palestinians when they initially did not deserve it.P3. Israel had superior armaments, and it was more than willing to use this against the Palestinians.This is proven via the F-16 strikes against Gaza, which was unjustified and killed 2,000 people, in which only 1/10th of those are members of an armed group.Voting Issues:-The opponent strawmans my entire argument; the account of the creation of Hamas was perceived by the opponent, apparently, as an argument for why Hamas is in power now and how Israel helped that, when it is clear that these arguments were meant to have shown that Israel created Hamas in order to avoid peace-The opponent justifies Israel's attacks, and condemns Hamas'. However, isn't it clear that Israel attacked the Palestinians; if we are talking about the suffering of the Palestinians, then Hamas too no part in it. One does not cause one's electorate to suffer. The Resolution is henceforth negated Citations: [1] http://globalresearch.ca... [2] http://henrymakow.com... [3]http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.timesofisrael.com...[5] http://www.haaretz.com...#!