The Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip was Justified (3rd attempt)

My opponent seems to believe that disproportionality is what makes Israel's invasion unjustifiable. "Put in more common terms, if someone punches me I can punch them back, because this is a reasonable, proportionate response in self defence. If someone punches me I cannot pull out a 12-gauge shotgun and shoot them in the head, because this isn't a reasonable, proportionate response. I will try and show that Israel's response was in no way proportional. " This example is not even close to being comparable to the situation between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israelis are not attacking Hamas for no reason. They are attacking Hamas to prevent further Israeli casualties. It is terrorist groups like Hamas who are responsible for civilian deaths on both sides of this conflict. Hamas INTENTIONALLY targets Israeli civilians, and they also launch these attacks from densely populated civilian areas in order to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties. They do this to create a win/win situation for themselves. If Israel sees that an area has a heavy civilian presence, it has two undesirable options: 1. Not attack for fear of killing civilians (which Israel has done many times). This would mean that the Hamas terrorists live to fight another day while retaining their rocket launchers. 2. Attack knowing that civilians will get killed in the crossfire, thereby awarding PR victory to Hamas. Palestinian civilian casualties are very useful to Hamas because they can then use it to garner sympathy and support among an international audience who usually does not take the time to find the truth in this conflict. "This is, in fact, completely false. Let me take it to the extreme so we can see how this logic is faulty. If a Pakistani militant came onto American soil, pulled out a gun, and shot an American soldier, do you think this is grounds for American to launch a nuclear strike on Pakistan's capital? Of course not, any act of aggression against a country does not give it the right for unrestrained retaliation against the enemy, especially when that enemy is amongst a civilian population. " Taking it to the extreme is what defeats my opponents argument! Israel has shown considerable restraint in this conflict. Hamas had been launching rockets into Israel LONG before Israel ever retaliated! And Israel did nothing that would come close to a nuclear attack. Of course a Pakistani soldier shooting an American soldier does not warrant a nuclear attack on Pakistan. But that is not even close to what is happening here. The idea that "any act of aggression against a country does not give it the right for unrestrained retaliation" is absurd. Israel's acts are NOT unrestrained and the blood of the Palestinian civilians that die is on the heads of Hamas. As I stated before, any other nation would take similar action. Israel is the only nation that is expected to tolerate terrorist attacks with a smile. This is completely unfair and ridiculous. "Firstly if Hamas was trying to maximize civilian deaths, they would simply go around and shoot their population. This is completely false. Secondly the onus is on the invading force to provide that a reasonable amount of civilian casualties occur. " My opponent has completely missed the point here. Hopefully, I have adequately explained this earlier, but I will do so again in order to get the point across. Hamas WANTS Palestinian civilians to die at the hands of the Israeli forces in order to get sympathy for their cause. This is why they intentionally launch their rockets from parks, schools, and houses. "Now we'll get to the alternatives. Quite simply the Middle East problem is a very long and complex one. I and I doubt my opponent is going to pretend there are any easy answers. I think the only reasonable action to take is through diplomacy, which will hopefully lead to a longer stable peace. " I wish this statement were true, but history has shown that it is not. It takes an incredible amount of naivete to expect that Hamas can be reasoned with. Their charter calls for nothing less than the destruction of Israel. Since Israel does not want to be destroyed, it has no other choice. Israel was able to make peace agreements with Egypt and other Arab nations, but Hamas' ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. It is not possible to reason with them on this point.