query: We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not  It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.

positive: ethics life kill one save many junior Given that we don’t know anything about these individuals all we have to work with are the numbers. If you take five random people and one random person then there is a greater chance that among the five people there is a life saving doctor. The only time this is not true is if the average person has a negative effect on the world. However, if this is the case we would always have to act in a way that fewest people survived which is absurd.

negative: ethics life kill one save many junior People suffer unfortunate deaths on a daily basis. The fact that people die in accidents does not necessarily mean that their right to life has been violated. Therefore, if one lets the train run its course five people will suffer an unfortunate accident. The real violation of rights in this situation is the action of changing the course of the train. The single person on the track is in no immediate danger. However, by changing the course of the train one is actively participating in the removal of that person’s life. If we believe that a person has the right not to be murdered then pulling the lever is a violation of that right.

negative: The internet is different from reality since the magnitude of consequences you might suffer is much greater. While there might be a school laughing at you over something in real life, on the internet it might be the whole world. We accept ridicule and embarrassment in real life not just because it happens, but also because the effect is not so overwhelming in the majority of cases. People get bored of the news and stop talking, while in the digital era new people can always find you and laugh at you – memories fade, photos and videos online do not. So internet is different from the real life and requires new rules.  Moreover, the right to be forgotten is not applicable to the real life not because of a principle, but because we cannot enforce it. We can’t delete people’s memories. But we can delete information online.

negative: ethics life kill one save many junior As humans we try to save as many people as possible  There exists a basic right to life which, as humans, we try to follow. Killing others is outlawed because we generally believe that every person has the right to live their life and no one else has the right to take that life away. In the situation with the train there are two possible outcomes which both lead to life being cut short. Due to the fact that we place such value on life we have a duty to reduce the number of people who die. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and this is to kill the one and save the five.

negative: Religious freedom does not allow for the right to harm others  Nobody is questioning the rights of adults to take actions in accordance with their faith, even when these may cause them some personal harm. Their beliefs may well lead them to conclusions that others might consider reckless but that is their concern. However, when those actions impact others in society, it is a matter for social concern and, frequently, the intervention of the law. If that harm is caused to those who cannot resist or who are incapable of responding, intervention is required. The law explicitly includes children in this category. We do not, for example, allow religious practices such as sacrifice or torture in pursuit of a religious end, however religiously convicted the parents might be. The case of Kristy Bamu, murdered by his parents, practitioners of voodoo, in the belief he was a witch, is just one such example [i] .  We expect the legal and medical professions to accord particular protection to children against the actions of others that could harm them including, in extremis, their parents. It is difficult to see what could be a more flagrant example of possible harm than allowing your child to die when an available remedy could save their life.  [i] Sue Reid. "Britain's voodoo killers: This week a minister warned of a wave of child abuse and killings linked to witchcraft. Alarmist? This investigation suggests otherwise." Daily Mail , 17 August 2012.

negative: First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow.  People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals.  Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration.  In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself  It is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.

negative: The potential for sharing of knowledge, were extraterrestrials to actually be contacted, might well be more limited and difficult than might first seem. The extraterrestrials will have evolved on a different world, perhaps along lines so alien to that of Earth's life that it would be utterly impossible to understand what they would have to say, even if they could be heard. They could simply be too alien. There is no reason to believe that any aliens are going to benevolent they could very well be hostile. (Brin, 2006) We should not therefore be attempting to contact aliens to share technology rather we should be focusing on advancing our own technology. 1 Brin, David. 2006. "Shouting at the Cosmos". Lifeboat Foundation.

negative: We expect people to want to use the right to be forgotten mostly when the information on the web is actually hurting them. That means that, in the most common scenario, people would face negative consequences before they can use the right, otherwise why bother one-self with engaging the legal system? However a lack of responsibility is not a charge that can be levied at everyone, often they just could not foresee the consequences. Being responsible is premised on the idea that you know the results of your actions. When you do not and cannot know them – because maybe that photo will be a problem in 10 years – no amount of thinking about an issue is going to make it better.

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.

negative: Equality requires that two beings are actually equal on some fundamental level. Human beings have certain essential similarities that make them equal. These do not stretch to animals. Human beings are able to distinguish right from wrong while animals have no notion of ethics. We are thus able to consider what kind of a society we want to live in and we are affected when we feel that there is social degradation. Animals, however, do not have this sense. We have fundamental dignity which animals do not. This is clear in the fact that animals do not experience shame or embarrassment, desire respect, or have a notion of self. Furthermore, human beings can consider their future and have particular desires about how they want their life to play out. These are different for every individual. This is why we are concerned with choice and protecting individualism and religion. Animals on the other hand are concerned only with immediate survival. They have only instincts, not individual desires and wants.  For these reasons, we can't consider animals to be equally morally considerable. As for the propositions standard of relevance for the criteria which distinguish animals from humans in any given case, we would argue that the fundamental individuality and humanity of our species is relevant in every case because it makes animal life fundamentally less valuable.

negative: Children should not be given power over their education, but it doesn’t follow that their opinions are of no consequence. We should very much care what they do and don’t enjoy. Firstly, if they don’t enjoy their schooling they won’t put any effort into it and will not actually learn anything. Secondly, if they feel we are making them do things they don’t want to do we will lose the ability to give them sensible suggestions.  We might think they ought to learn maths, but forcing them to do it will cause more harm than good.

negative: Utilitarianism is morally demanding  If we recognize a duty to actively go out of our way (and indeed, carry the burden of killing another person) to save another person just because it’s in our power, then all sorts of new obligations open up. For instance, we are now obliged to donate all of our disposable income to charity because we could do so and each save dozens of lives a year. The reason why some religious institutions canonize people is precisely because their philanthropy is exceptional and beyond what could be expected of the average person: people like Damien of Molokai, who traveled to an island to help people suffering from leprosy, knowing that he would eventually contract the disease in the process [1] . While such actions may be praiseworthy, it is implausible that they would be morally obligatory.  [1] Donadio, Rachel, ‘Benedict Canonizes 5 New Saints’, The New York Times, 11 October 2009,

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings.  As to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs.  [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate.  [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)

negative: There are several reasons why health care should not be considered a universal human right.  The first issue is one of definition – how do we define the services that need to be rendered in order for them to qualify as adequate health care? Where do we draw the line? Emergency surgery, sure, but how about cosmetic surgery?  The second is that all human rights have a clear addressee, an entity that needs to protect this right. But who is targeted here? The government? What if we opt for a private yet universal health coverage – is this any less moral? Let’s forget the institutions for a second, should this moral duty of health care fall solely on the doctors perhaps? [1]  In essence, viewing health care as a right robs us of another, much more essential one – that of the right to one’s own life and one’s livelihood. If it is not considered a service to be rendered, than how could a doctor charge for it? She couldn’t! If it were a right, than each of us would own it, it would have to be inseparable from us. Yet, we don’t and we can’t. [2]  We can see that considering health care as a basic human right has profound philosophical problems, not the least of them the fact that it infringes on the rights of others.  [1] Barlow, P., Health care is not a human right, published 7/31/1999,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [2] Sade, R., The Political Fallacy that Medical Care is a Right, published 12/2/1971,  , accessed 9/18/2011

negative: ethics life kill one save many junior More ‘good’ is produced by saving five lives than saving one  When any life is removed so too is the future good that life may produce; all of the good that person would have experienced as well as all of the good they could have brought to other people’s lives will no longer occur. It is difficult to say precisely how much good a person may bring. However, it is fair to assume that saving five people brings with it a greater chance of higher levels of ‘good’. Considering the fact that one does not know anything about the people on the tracks one must assume that there will be five times more ‘good’ produced by saving their lives than if the one person is saved.

negative: law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence Suicide is a waste of life  Suicide is a waste of life. It is an immoral act that ignores the sacrosanct nature of human life – something that is universally considered to be the case as shown by being something nearly all religions consider to be the case. [1] Failure to criminalize such a flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life condemns any society as irreligious and immoral. Nowadays we hear everyone talking about human rights; we hear precious little about human obligations. If we believe in the moral worth of human rights we do so because we think that human life is a wonderful thing and something with which we should not interfere. Whether the interference is by others or by ourselves, any action that denigrates human life is morally wrong for precisely the reason that we support human rights. We have an obligation to preserve all life, including our own.  [1] Perrett, Roy Wo., ‘Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 5, October 1996,

negative: There is no way to prevent attempts at contact so they should be official.  There is no way for us to attempt to prevent everyone in the planet from trying to contact aliens so the attempts might as well be done officially. There are more than 6 billion people on Earth, we cannot control their actions or keep an eye on them all. If we had no official messages going out then we would be allowing private individuals to monopolize the message which could have consequences if there ever is contact as a result of these attempts1. At the same time we can't just turn off all our communication signals. We have been broadcasting our radio and television shows, mobile phone conversations etc. for decades, how would we just shut it all off and make sure nothing leaks further out to space? It is therefore better for governments who are at least the representatives of their people to be controlling the message by themselves attempting to contact extraterrestrial life. 1  ">Drezner, Daniel, 'How do you say "realpolitik" in Klingon?' ForeignPolicy.com, 25th April 201

negative: Homework wastes teachers time  We are not the only ones who take a lot of time on homework, our teachers do as well. The teacher needs to design the homework, explain it, mark each piece individually, and tell everyone what they got right and wrong. If all this is not done then the homework loses its value as we need to be told individually what our mistakes are to be able to learn from homework. Teachers could as easily use the classwork to find out who knows what they are doing and who are making mistakes and it would save them time.

negative: disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should However, the idea that we should not kill is not absolute, even for those with religious beliefs — killing in war or self-defence is justified by most. We already let people die because they are allowed to refuse treatment which could save their life, and this has not damaged anyone's respect for the worth of human life. Concerning the notion that legalised voluntary euthanasia might lead to involuntary euthanasia being carried out, there is no evidence to suggest this. As Ronald Dworkin states, 'Of course doctors know the moral difference between helping people who beg to die and killing those who want to live.' [1]  [1] Ronald Dworkin, stated in The case against, available at  (accessed 4/6/2011).

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense It is a natural thing to do  We are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer. [1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less. They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.

negative: The internet does not need additional rights to those in the real world  The right to be forgotten is premised on the idea that internet requires additional rights beyond those in the real world. Offline there is no right to demand that people do not to talk about or show photos of your embarrassing moments. Provided that there is no privacy breach, once something is out in public, you cannot take it back. There is no rule enabling you to be forgotten in real life, even if things you have done harm you. Why then do rules have to be different for the internet?  In 21st century the internet has become an integral part of our lives and of human communication that it is in fact just another reality for us. We do the same things there as we do in real life – socialise, engage in our hobbies etc. The only difference is that the internet provides us with greater opportunities, such as reaching more people, but that does not change the principle that human interaction online is pretty much the same as offline. If there is no right to be forgotten in real life, there should not be one in the digital one.

negative: ethics life kill one save many junior We do not want a society in which killing can be acceptable  As soon as we agree that there are situations where killing is acceptable we have reason to fear for our own safety. By accepting killing in certain situations society as a whole becomes more open to the idea. It then becomes hard to draw the line as to where killing is acceptable and where killing is unacceptable. It is much better to outlaw all instances of killing so that we have a general moral standard to follow in all situations.

negative: crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more If we had the opportunity to stop some offenders re-offending why do we not seize this opportunity? Rehabilitative programs provide such an opportunity. Such programs include cognitive-behavioural programs (say, trying to get a violent offender to think and reach differently to potential ‘trigger’ situations), pro-social modelling programmes, and some sex-offender treatment programs. Of course, certain styles will suit some better than others, but this is someone that will have to determined case by case. As some methods with work better than others depending on attitudes, values etc.  The most credible research (done by a technique called meta-analysis) demonstrates that the net effect of treatment is, on average, a positive reduction of overall recidivism (reoffending) rates of between 10% and 12%, which would promote a reduction in crime that is, by criminal standards, massive.  Rehabilitation is a concept. It is not a definite technique whose effectiveness can be precisely measured. So yes some forms of rehabilitation may not work, others however might. What the opposition to this argues is what we've deemed rehabilitation is what we will utiize going forward. However, this is illogical; as we speak, new methods of rehabilitation could be concocted. Such an indefinite ideal cannot be proven as ineffective. For example, if somebody proves that high-speel monorail transportation is ineffective, this does not mean that transportation is absolutely and fundamentally flawed. One simply cannot disprove an infinite set of hypotheses.

negative: This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them?  We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’.  Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1]  [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.

negative: Reality television forces us to analyse our own behaviour as a society  Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society; they are effectively anthropological experiments, allowing the public to study people and societies from the comfort of their living rooms1. Humans are endlessly different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these programmes we see people like us faced with unusual situations. Shows like Survivor, which place a group of strangers in remote environments, make us think about what we would do in their place, and about what principles govern human behaviour in general. It also shows us people who look and act very different from us, and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with them. MTV's reality show 'Making the Band 2', a 'hip-hop American Idol', gives centre stage to inner-city kids who would be portrayed as criminals or victims on a cop drama. There is nothing immoral about reality shows, merely the society which demands them; these shows are just a product of our values and desires. We should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker

negative: Genetic destabilisation  Natural selection is the process whereby people mate, have children and those children enrich the gene pool – if they survive. Occasionally genetic mistakes are made in that reproduction. As long as the result is not fatal, that mistake can begin to infiltrate the gene pool. More people may come to have this mistake in built into their genome. Whilst we may see it as a mistake in our current living conditions, that mutant gene may be a defense to future conditions.  For instance, the spread of sickle cell anemia in Africa. This disease causes red blood cells to carry less oxygen due to the squashed nature of all the red blood cells. This condition causes people to die younger, in 1973 life expectancy for a sufferer was 17, and it is now 50 and above. However, sickle cell anemia is a natural immunity against malaria. The life expectancy for someone with malaria is far lower.[[Sickle cell disease, QualityHealth, 13th January 2011,  accessed 25/05/11]]  We need different genes in the human gene pool even if we do not see the benefit of them now.

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Transparency is a good in and of itself  The most essential commodity within a state is trust. Trust is essential in all sorts of aspect of our lives; we trust that the paper money we have is actually worth more than a scrap of paper, that doctors performing surgery know what they are doing, that we won't be attacked in the street, and that the government is looking after our interests. In order to create that trust there needs to be transparency so that we know that our institutions are trustworthy. It is the ability to check the facts and the accountability that comes with transparency that creates trust. And this in turn is what makes them legitimate. [1]  The need for trust applies just as much to security as any other walk of life. Citizens need to trust that the security services really are keeping them safe, are spending taxpayers’ money wisely, and are acting in a fashion that is a credit to the country. Unfortunately if there is not transparency there is no way of knowing if this is the case and so often the intelligence services have turned out to be an embarrassment. As has been the case with the CIA and it’s the use of torture following 9/11, for which there are still calls for transparency on past actions. [2]  [1] Ankersmit, Laurens, ‘The Irony of the international relations exception in the transparency regulation’, European Law Blog, 20 March 2013  [2] Traub, James, ‘Out With It’, Foreign Policy, 10 May 2013

negative: There is no better present for somebody than to give him a life. Our lives are not just about money. There are so many valuable emotions, situations, experiences that have nothing to do with wealth level, for example falling in love or simply being enchanted by the world’s beauty. Even if the child is born to an impoverished family that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to rise out of the poverty. There are numerous sponsored programmes that encourage social mobility in both developing and developed countries. However, we need to accept this simple truth that life is not a sequence of only joyful events, and sometimes we have to experience a difficult situation to be able to appreciate all the good out there. Additionally, positive experiences in lives usually outweigh those negative, that’s why a vast majority of us would never change our lives for not being born. Therefore, giving a child a life is more than morally right.

negative: Children should not be the arbiters of the education system  To avoid teaching maths to children just because they don’t like the subject would be to shape the education system around adolescent whims. But children are not best placed to put a value on their education. They don’t know what knowledge is required for life and what skills are required for a career. They are likely to choose arbitrarily, influenced perhaps by which teachers are most strict, which subject they happen to be good at and what mood they’re in. It is for this reason that we don’t recognise children as being fully capable of making decisions about their education. Consequences of this include a government-fixed curriculum.  Adults know the value of maths: one poll in America found that 34% of people named it as the most valuable subject they had studied at school. [1] We think children should be learning maths, and it follows that they will have to do it, like it or not.  [1] Robison, Jennifer, ‘Math Tops List of Most Valuable Subjects’, Gallup, 21 January 2003,

negative: church marriage religions society gender family house believes reproductive Any body of values that claims to respect the rights of the individual must recognise the right of a woman to choose  Even the doctrines of the Church accepts that pregnancy is not, in and of itself, a virtue – there is no compulsion to maximise the number of pregnancies; there is simply a disagreement about how they should be avoided. The Church recommends that couples may minimise the chance without ever making it impossible through a chemical or physical barrier.  In some parts of the world a pregnancy, even one that is not planned, is seen as a time for joy – a blessing for the family that will lead to a new and happy life bringing pleasure to both parents, their society and the child. That ideal is very far from the experience of much of the world where a child is another mouth to feed on impossibly little income. For all too much of the world, that life will be cruel, nasty and short. In slums, favellas and barren wastes that life is likely to be one marked more by dysentery or diarrhea, malnutrition and misery than by the sanitised, idealised image promoted in the West. That is, of course, not to say that children everywhere cannot be a cause for joy, of course they can. Indeed even within the poorest of situations, a new child can be the focus of great joy in an otherwise hard life.  However, if that is to be the case, that child must be planned and prepared for. Overwhelmingly, the mother is likely to have paramount responsibility for the child; so that planning and preparation needs to be theirs. It is difficult to imagine the scenario that would reach the objective observer to reach the conclusion that the right group of individuals to reach that decision were a group of celibate men who had never met the parents and would take to role in the care or support of the child. Yet that, astonishingly, is what Proposition would like us to believe.

negative: ethics life kill one save many junior The act of killing is emotionally damaging  To actually be involved in the death of another person is an incredibly traumatic experience. Soldiers coming back from war often suffer from ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ which suggests that being in a situation in which you have to take another persons life has a long lasting impact on your mental health. This is also true for people who are not directly involved in the act of killing. For instance, the people who worked on developing the atomic bomb described an incredible guilt for what they had created even though they were not involved in the decision to drop the bombs. The same traumatic experiences would likely affect the person responsible for pulling the lever.


query: The Settlements commit future Israeli governments to a harder stand in future negotiations  Whether deliberate or not, the settlements are changing the “facts on the ground” by changing the political calculus for future Israeli governments.  While most Israeli politicians accept the need to abandon some smaller settlements, the vast majority are unlikely to be evacuated. It was politically divisive to the point of breaking the Likud party in two when Ariel Sharon, a man with more credit than anyone else on the Israeli right pulled out of Gaza in 2005, and there were only a little over 7000 Israeli settlers there. By contrast there are now more than 300,000 settlers in the West Bank, and this number is rising fast. [1] There were less than 200,000 in 2000. [2]  Of these settlers, many are religious and vote for the Haridam (Orthodox) parties like the National Religious Party . [3] Because the party has served in governments of both the Left and the Right in recent years, in practice they and the ultra-nationalist Israel Beitinu tend to hold the balance of power in the Israeli Knesset.  Therefore every time Israel expands settlements, they are reducing their room to manoeuvre in future Peace Negotiations, and forcing themselves to take a harder stance. This means that Peace will either become less likely (because Israel will set more extreme terms) or that Israel will face more internal divisions in order to offer it. In either case, as the settlements expand  [1] Levinson, Chaim, ‘IDF: More than 300, 000 settlers live in West Bank’, Haaretz.com, 27 July 2009,   [2] Wikipedia, ‘Population statistics for Israeli West Bank settlements’, en.wikipedia.org,  , accessed 20 January 2012  [3] Etkes, Dror, ‘The Ultra-Orthodox Jews in the West Bank’, Peace Now, October 2005,

positive: rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west First, it is unclear if this is even true. A 2010 poll showed support for dismantling settlements in exchange for Peace at an all-time high in Israel. [1]  Secondly, even if it is true that settlements complicate the internal Israeli political picture, the impact on the Peace Process is limited to the extent to which one accepts that the West Bank borders are sacrosanct. Beyond that, the difference in political cost between uprooting 180,000 and 300,000 settlers is marginal at best – both are likely impossible concessions for any Israeli government to make except under enormous international pressure in which case the numerical difference is of limited importance.  Far more important is accepting that the assumption that the West Bank boundaries are sacrosanct has done far more harm than good. It gives neither side room to compromise on the issues of vital importance to them. For Israel, providing defence in depth for Tel Aviv which is only sixteen miles from Jerusalem, for the Palestinians, ensuring that their national home is economically viable.  Far better would be to use the existent of the settlements to pressure both sides to accept that some portion of the West Bank will remain with Israel in any settlement, while in exchange, some portion of Israel proper approximately equal in size will be transferred to a future Palestinian entity. Once both sides accept this premise, the number of options for an agreement and for compensations on the issues of dispute increase astronomically.  It is perhaps for this reason that support for this exchange has moved from the fringes to the mainstream of Israel Political thinking with even Tzipi Livni of the Center-Left Kadima now open to it. [2]  [1] Richman, Alvin, ‘Israeli Public’s Support for Dismantling Most Settlements Has Risen to a Five-Year High’, World Public Opinion.org, 15 April 2010,   [2] Carlstrom, Gregg, ‘Lieberman sees common ground with Livni’, Al Jazeera, 25 January 2011,

negative: An attempt to build up international support reinforces Israeli fears of a Palestinian state being used as a platform for attacks against them  Among Israel’s prime security concerns about a prospective Palestinian state is that it might become a base for Israel’s other enemies to attack it.  Israel is particularly vulnerable strategically from the West Bank, and the distance between East Jerusalem and Tel Aviv is barely 15 miles. [1]  The great fear therefore is that a legitimately independent Palestinian state might well allow the basing of Iranian weapons on its territory, or provides a base for Israeli Arab dissidents to launch an attack. While there would be little practical change in the ability of Israel to stop foreign forces being allowed into Palestine the Palestinians would be able to claim that they are within their sovereign rights to allow foreign basing rights just as many other countries around the world do.  Repeated efforts to bring in International support, and a focus on legal sovereignty to the exclusion of actual concrete steps to reassure Israel such as disarming Hamas, will only reinforce these concerns on the part of Israel.  [1] Gold, Dore, ‘Military-Strategic Aspects of West Bank Topography for Israel's Defense’, Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace, 2005,

negative: The military operations were necessary for long term peace:  As Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Haleviargue explain, “the Israeli public will not make territorial concessions on the West Bank or the Golan Heights if Gaza is allowed to become a neighboring terrorist state that can launch attacks with impunity. Israel had already had a bad enough experience letting that happen with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.”(1) Without the assurance that they will be allowed to protect their homes and families following withdrawal, Israelis will rightly perceive a two-state solution as an existential threat. They will continue to share the left-wing vision of coexistence with a peaceful Palestinian neighbor in theory, but in reality will heed the right's warnings of Jewish powerlessness.(4)  Meanwhile, the stronger Hamas becomes, the more resistance moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will face to making any concessions to Israel.(1) Therefore damaging Hamas, via Operation Cast Lead, actually aided the peace process in the long run, and was necessary in order to make an eventual two-state peace solution possible. The Israeli attacks may also eventually help force Hamas to accept a more durable ceasefire. Unlike the botched invasion of Lebanon in 2006, when Israel set itself the unattainable goal of eliminating the military capability of Hezbollah, during Operation Cast Lead it was made clear that the objective was not to wipe out Hamas, but instead to force the radical group to accept a durable cease-fire on Israel's terms.(8) This was necessary as prior to Operation Cast Lead Hamas showed no interest in peace, opting instead to pursue its political objectives through the use of terrorism. When Hamas came to power in Gaza in January 2006, it failed to control the rocket fire from the variety of miltary brigades, including its own al-Qassam brigade, into Israel and failed to establish internal stability. The widespread violence between Fatah and Hamas, which ended in June 2007, when Hamas took control of Gaza and ousted leaders of President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, made Israel more wary of the security threat an unstable Gaza could pose.(9)  In Israel's view, Hamas' behavior and its reliance on terror tactics will never change if it thinks it can attack with impunity, and so the Israeli military operations were necessary and justified in the name of restoring Israel's deterrent and weakening Hamas, both of which make long term peace more likely.

negative: rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west Settlements provide economic investment in the Occupied Territories  The fundamental fact is that the West Bank, whatever its status, is not an economically viable entity on its own. It produces few goods, while Gaza produces next to none, and independence without a major influx of capital will not change this situation.  The best source for a supply of capitol in the region lies in Israel, which has an enormous demand for a low-wage work-force. Millions of Palestinians worked in Israel until after 2000, and with travel into Israel proper restricted, settlement construction and cultivation provide economic development opportunities for the region and create jobs for Palestinians. [1] This is an important prospect when the unemployment figures for the Palestinians are at nearly 30%. [2]  Furthermore the very need for such labor is likely to further incentivise Israel to loosen restrictions on Palestinian workers in the West Bank and Gaza.  [1] Hass, Amira, ‘Israel to lift restrictions on Palestinian Jordan Valley travel’, Haaretz.com, 26 April 2007,   [2] ‘Palestinian unemployment shows gradual decline’, Jmcc, 21 February 2010,

negative: The Palestinians will accept a peace deal that gives them East Jerusalem, and so the fears over 'Hamas' are misplaced as the conflict will end. In October 2010 Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem. “We want to receive a map of the State of Israel which Israel wants us to accept. If the map will be based on the 1967 borders and will not include our land, our houses and East Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within the hour. ” added Rabbo.(18) Moreover, Jerusalem has been psychologically and religiously divided since 1967. The walls may be invisible, but they are high and thick. Many Israelis never go to the Arab neighbourhoods or the Old City, because they know, even though Israel controls them, they are not welcome. Many Arabs don't go to the Jewish sections, because they too know they are not welcome. And tens of thousands of secular Israelis have fled Jerusalem for Tel Aviv, because they do not feel comfortable in a city dominated by the ultra-Orthodox.(1) Only formalizing these divisions can end the conflict.

negative: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides  A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians.  While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1)  Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.

negative: rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west It is absurd to argue that because someone is hypocritical that they lose their rights. The fact is that the Palestinians today are not guilty of the crimes of their ancestors anymore than the Israelis are.  Rather than being evaluated based on history, they should be evaluated based on what is justified now. And settlements make both sides less secure, and render peace less and less likely.

negative: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict  It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: “We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.”(5)  A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11)  Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.

negative: americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international Risk of “lawfare” against Israel  The specific position that Israel is in, places it at a unique risk of “lawfare”, the use and abuse of the legal process by states for political ends.  A particular concern is Article 8(2)(b)(viii), which could be used as a particular tool to attack Israel over the settlements policy. Issues over settlements in the West Bank should be resolved by negotiation during the existing, albeit fractious, peace process, rather than being used as a tool for those who wish to derail good faith negotiations by dragging matters in to the hands of the international courts.  Israel has regularly been singled out for particular beration by UN bodies. For example, over half of the country-specific resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Council have been about Israel, while praising Muammar Gadaffi.

negative: rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west The Settlements are justified based on the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands after 1967  Settlement construction, and in fact the whole settlement of Jews in the West Bank has to be viewed in the wider context of the Middle East conflict as a whole.  Jews lived in the West Bank for thousands of years before the creation of Israel, and it was only after the 1948 war when Jews were fully ethnically cleansed from the region. While a Diaspora took place among the Arabs of Israel it was neither as deliberate nor as thorough – a large Arab population remained. No Jews remained in the West Bank under Jordanian rule.  As such many of these settlements are not artificial constructions but built on the ruins of pre-1948 Jewish communities.  Furthermore, the same 1967 War that brought on the Israeli conquest of the West Bank was also followed by a new round of pogroms against the nearly 800,000 Jews living in Arab countries more than 95% of which were driven into exile in Israel. [1] Israel has not responded by expelling or compensating them at the expense of their own Arabs, as they would be morally justified in doing, but rather has settled them on empty land in the West Bank. Any claim that the Palestinians have an inherent right to property which they do not explicitly own must also take into account Israel’s need to compensate these refugees.  [1] Aharoni, Ada, ‘The Forced Migration of Jews From Arab Countries and Peace’, August 2002, Historical Society of Jews from Egypt,

negative: global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Israel has forcibly removed settlements when transferring back occupied land in the past, most notably in 1982 in the Sinai and 2005 in Gaza. While difficult, it is possible, and any ensuing difficulties are the fault of the Israeli government for allowing these settlements in the first place, and as such the cost (of not having their own state) should not be borne by the Palestinian people.

negative: global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Israel has no right to the occupied territories.  Because Israel won the land during war, it is considered occupied territory under international law, and it is illegal for Israel to annex it. [1] In July 2004, the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion observing that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections, but the Court found them unpersuasive. The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories, had done nothing to alter the situation. [2] Even the Israeli Supreme court has ruled that “Judea and Samaria [a.k.a. The West Bank] areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.” [3] Therefore, Israel has no better claim to these lands than that it won them in a war, which is an illegitimate claim under international law, and also illegitimate as a thinly-disguised, morally abhorrent “might makes right” argument. The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory. [4] A just settlement would have been a return to the previous borders in exchange for security guarantees, etc. Instead, Israel unjustly used the opportunity to take land from an innocent people. One bad act does not justify another bad act in return. Moreover, it is notable that the nations which Israel took Gaza and the West Bank from in 1967 (Egypt and Jordan, respectively) were not representative nations of the areas' majority inhabitants, the Palestinian people. [5] It is thus illegitimate for Israel to claim ownership of Palestinian land because it defeated non-Palestinian nations in a war, and Israel should therefore return to its pre-1967 borders, leaving Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinian people.  [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.   [2] International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. International Court of Justice, United Nations Organisation. July 2004.   [3] The Supreme Court of Israel. “Mara'abe vs The Prime Minister of Israel”. The Supreme Court of Israel. June 2005.   [4] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [5] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.

negative: rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west There is nothing legal or sacred about the West Bank’s borders – it was an ad-hoc armistice line never recognized internationally  The West Bank is not some sort of recognized entity with legally or internationally recognized boundaries. Its borders were the 1948 cease-fire line between Israeli and Jordanian forces, and Jordan’s annexation of the region, and hence the borders were only recognized by two countries – the United Kingdom and Pakistan. [1]  This is important, because the entire challenge to the legality of the settlements, i.e. Why they are unacceptable in Hebron but not in the Negev, is due to the belief that Israel is somehow annexing Palestinian territory. While some of the West Bank was intended to be part of a Palestinian state in 1948, and some will be incorporated into a new one in the future, Israel is under no responsibility to the international community or any comprehension of International law to recognize boundaries that have no legal force and do not legally exist.  [1] ‘Jordan Renounced Claims to West Bank, 1988’, Palestine Facts,

negative: rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west The Palestinians were full participants in the 1948 War against Israel  Before the discussion of the Palestinians as the innocent victims of Israeli oppression can be established, it should be noted that the Palestinian leadership were full participants in rejecting the 1948 partition plan and the war that followed. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem rejected any form of compromise, and urged the removal of the region’s Jewish population, while massacres of Jewish settlers at Palestinian hands and the complete elimination of the Jewish presence in the areas of Palestine that the Israelis did not secure in 1948 speaks to a certain degree of popular enthusiasm. [1]  Following 1948, Israeli law provided for compensation or the return of land for any exiled Palestinians who returned to Israel proper and took an oath to the state.  This does not justify the actions of Israel in their entirety, but the tragedy of the Palestinian people is partially of their own making, and if one accepts the principles of the right of return, then the creation of Israeli settlements furthers this on the Israeli side.  Furthermore, it calls into question what, if any legal claim the Palestinians can have to any land on the basis of a UN partition plan they rejected, and on the basis of principles and practices they themselves have subverted.  [1] Dershowitz, Alan, ‘Has Israel’s Victimization of the Palestinians Been the Primary Cause of the Arab-Israeli Conflict?’, The Case for Israel, Chapter 10, 2003,

negative: Palestine has as valid a claim to Jerusalem as Israel does:  The Palestinians have as valid a claim to Jerusalem as the capitol of their state as the Israelis has a claim to Jerusalem as the capitol of their state. At the end of 2008, the population of East Jerusalem was 57% Muslim (Palestinian) and only 43% Jewish, sowing a clear and workable Palestinian majority in East Jerusalem.(10) Both sides have important religious sites in the city. The dome of the Rock is integral to Islam to the prophet Muhammad’s night journey to the temple making it Islam’s third holiest place after only Mecca and Medina. It is equally important for Jews to have access to the Western Wall.(1)  For the Palestinians Israel has made its claim over the whole of Jerusalem more illegitimate by misgoverning the East of Jerusalem. For example, because there are no Arab’s on the committee that chooses street names in Jerusalem in the telephone book maps of Arab neighbourhoods are blank, like unexplored parts of the Amazon in the 19th century. As a result mail is seldom delivered there, and having Arabs' become perceived to be invisible, non-existent or else branded as terrorists.(5)  Throughout the Israeli occupation the demographic balance has served as the main consideration in Israeli decision making for both local and central government. This has been a deliberate attempt to forstall any attempt by the Palestinians to claim that they have an equal right to Jerusalem. Israeli policies have been directed to mainly serve spatial/demographic domination of "Jewish Jerusalem." There was no attempt to "integrate" the Palestinian neighborhoods' functions with West Jerusalem or the settlements built in Palestinian areas. On the contrary, the policy has been to separate and isolate them.  East Jerusalem serves naturally as a metropolitan center of the entire West Bank, until the Oslo agreement in September 1993, some autonomy of Palestinian Jerusalemites was allowed especially in educational, sport, health, cultural, religious institutions and community based organizations. There has however been a movement from "United Jerusalem" to "Jewish Jerusalem." From 2000 the Palestinian demographic threat, became the reason for "getting rid" of Palestinian Jerusalemites after Israel had accomplished its spacio-political goals for a "Jewish Jerusalem." Israel of today is in the process of replacing the slogan of "United Jerusalem" with great "Jewish Jerusalem" with the Old City as its core. As a result of the Israeli policy, Palestinian neighborhoods (including the available land for future development) consist of only 17 percent of the entire East Jerusalem area and 7 percent of total municipal Jerusalem. Israel restricted the Palestinian construction and economic development, which led to the emigration of the Palestinians from the city to new areas developed as suburbs of the city. This territorial/demographic domination and restriction on Palestinian development affected East Jerusalem by deteriorating its functionality in disconnecting it from its hinterland and West Bank areas.(14)  Israeli officials have also not been fair or protective of Palestinians, repeatedly being highly abusive, and Israeli security forces have been accepting of abusive Israeli civilian treatment of Palestinians.(2) Moreover, Jerusalem can be shared, and thus divided in practical terms but not "divided" per se. It has been a Palestinian position that Jerusalem can "remain the capital of Israel" and can "remain undivided". This is a as long as that does not preclude the Palestinians from also having their capital in a "shared" city.(11) What matters is that it is recognised that the Palestinians have as valid a claim to their part of Jerusalem as the Israelis do to their part, and as a consequence Jerusalem should be divided in such a way as to give the Palestinians control over their area as the capitol of their new state.

negative: The west only supports democracies that fit with its world view.  Fincial and diplomatic engagement with the international community is essential for democracy to take hold. Tensions turn to conflict when governments are unable to provide basic services to the people, as was the case in Gaza when Hamas was elected in 2006 and the US and EU immediatey froze nearly all the funds and resources that were reaching the occupied territory. Furthermore, support from the West is necessary to provide the financial resources to rebuild after the revolutions damaged business and scared tourists away.  However the West’s does not support democracy unless the ruling party is guaranteed to act in the interests of the West. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the United States has either directly aided or executed the overthrow of over thirty foreign governments, many of which were popularly elected.a The US has in the past warned that aid to Lebanon could be jeopardized if Hezbollah was dominant in the government. [1] The US has a history of confrontation with the party that is the main political representation for the Shia element of Lebanese society which has eroded rather than supported Lebanese stability. [2] The victory of Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian elections, winning 76 of 132 seats, did not result in any rapprochement with the Bush administration despite their professed desire to see democracy in the Middle East. [3] The result was that aid from Europe and the US was reduced to humanitarian aid only, rather than as before being a major element of Palestinian government income and expenditure. [4] The result being that in 2007 the ‘country’ was rent in two as Hamas seized control of Gaza. Of course another Middle Eastern state that holds democratic elections, Iran, is the very model of a pariah state from the western point of view. It seems that the west is less concerned about democracy in the middle east and more about stability.  a. Wikipedia, 'Covert United States foreign regime change actions;,   [1] ‘U.S. warns on ties with Hezbollah-backed Lebanon gov’t’, Reuters, 25 January 2011,   [2] Nicholas Noe, Lebanese government collapse: a history of missed opportunities, guardian.co.uk, 14th January 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [3] Scott Wilson, Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast, Washington Post Foreign Service, 27th January 2006,  accessed 19/5/11  [4] Palestinian Parliamentary Elections 2006, GlobalSecurity.org,  accessed 19/5/11

negative: It is indisputable that Hamas has launched violent attacks against civilian targets. Israel, on the other hand, conducts its operations exercising all due care to limit civilian casualties. Hamas terrorists, however, set up their headquarters and store weapons in private homes, schools, colleges and mosques. Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit have blamed Hamas for provoking the Israeli attack on Hamas targets embedded in civilian areas.(28) Israel's air assault has resulted in more Palestinian casualties, but that is in part because Hamas deliberately locates its security forces in residential neighborhoods. This is intended both to deter Israel from attacking in the first place as well as to turn world opinion against the Jewish state when it does attack. By all accounts, however, the Israeli strikes hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces.(1)  Israel actually put its own troops in harm’s way to minimize civilian casualties during Operation Cast Lead.(13) This shows Israel's commitment to preventing civilian casualties and thus the justification of Operation Cast Lead. The disparity between Israeli and Palestinian casualties can be explained by the fact that Israel has early warning systems and hospitals. Israel invests significantly more in stable buildings that do not crumble when subjected a blast, systems that can detect incoming rocket fire, and an extensive and modern network of hospitals and emergency response teams. This, and the fact that Israel does not attempt to shield its military installations behind civilian homes and businesses, helps lower the number of civilian casualties as compared to in Gaza.(2)  The claim that Israel violated the principle of proportionality, by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets, is absurd. There is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.(29) Moreover, if Israel were to be 'proportional' and respond to the Hamas attacks in the same way, what would that mean? Would this require that it launch rocket attacks back against Gazan civilians? Obviously not (this would result in even more civilian deaths), and this is where the logic of proportionality against terrorist attacks makes little sense.

negative: global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Failure to withdraw blocks legitimate Palestinian aspirations to statehood.  The Palestinian people since 1967 have demonstrated through resistance to Israeli occupation their desire for an independent state of their own. [1] Throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement, which would offer them an independent state as well as allowing Israel to continue to exist as an independent state alongside the new Palestinian nation. [2] Israel's refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders means that the majority of Palestinian people are compelled to live under the control of a state they do not wish to be a part of, a violation of their right to self-determination under international law. The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: “All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right”. [3] Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said in 2006 that the pre-1967 borders uphold the “legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people for a secure, united, democratic and economically viable state coexisting peacefully with Israel.” [4] By this measure, the Palestinian majority in the occupied territories have the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and Israel's suppression of that right through its refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders should be seen as a human rights violation. Consequently, Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders in order to end its violation of the rights of the Palestinian people.  [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.   [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007.  [3] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.   [4] Agence France-Presse, NDTV. “Brazil recognises Palestinian state on 1967 borders”. NDTV. 5 December 2010.

negative: political philosophy politics terrorism house believes terrorism can be Terrorism, in the long term, has far less chances of success than other, peaceful means. It antagonises and angers the community that it targets. It polarises opinion and makes it more difficult for moderates on both sides to prevail and compromise. A lasting and peaceful settlement can only be won with the freely given consent of both parties to a conflict or disagreement. The examples given in this argument are of countries and areas that still counter much instability, and in countries such as Israel and Palestine a sustainable peaceful solution still seems far away. Moreover, the Oslo peace process is the result of long-term, diplomatic efforts on an international scale, and terrorism does not seem to have contributed directly to this process.

negative: rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west If de facto boundaries exist for a long enough time they gain legal force. The border between North and South Korea is a legal armistice line, rather than an official international boundary, but anyone attempting to make that argument upon crossing it would be likely to receive a cool reception.  The boundaries of the West Bank were de facto recognized, first when Israel and Jordan agreed to abide by them for twenty years after 1948, second when Jordan ceded all claim to the territories, and third implicitly by Israel itself which has made no claim to annex the territory, even in areas where settlements are located. They have not bothered with this sort of diplomatic care when it comes to the Golan Heights which they annexed. [1]  As a consequence it can be implied that at least Israel believes that its claims to the West Bank are questionable, and would like to ensure them through negotiation and this makes the claim that they don’t know exactly what they are doing in the West Bank and that it’s a de facto violation of International Law something less than plausible..  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Golan Heights’, en.wikipedia.org,  , accessed 20 January 2012

negative: The occupation of the West Bank still continued, including the construction of settlements.  The general role of individuals in the peace negotiations is beside the point: individuals who commit atrocities should be responsible for them.

negative: global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Israel won the 1967 war, even though this tiny nation was up against numerous Arab nations that aggressively initiated the conflict. [1] It had and has a right, therefore, to govern territory it rightfully fought and died for. All land held by any nation was gained through conflict at one time or another; the Palestinian people came to be in possession of their land in the West Bank through the Arab Conquests of the 7th Century. [2] Why are Israel's conquests any less legitimate, especially seeing as Israel took this land in self-defence and has kept only the land it needs for its continuing security? Moreover, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live in settlements beyond the 1967 borders, and Israel has both the right and responsibility to protect their lives and homes by continuing to hold this territory.  [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007

negative: Prosecutions are an impediment to peace negotiations  A prosecution against a prominent military or political figure could jeopardize faith in the international community, which would be harmful to peace negotiations. Prosecuting one side would effectively allocate blame, damaging Israel’s position. Sharon may have been the only man who could have led the Gaza pullout, [1] he would not have had the chance or would not have been able to if he was prosecuted.  This is not a new concern – there were issues following ICTY indictments and the Dayton negotiation, with some parties being unable to attend [2] . Similarly, the Lord’s Resistance Army offered to surrender but refused due to ICC arrest warrants [3] .  [1] Vick, Karl, ‘Ariel Sharon: Israel’s Soldier and Strongman, 1928-2014’, Time, 11 January 2014,   [2] Goldstone, Richard, “Peace versus Justice”, Nevada Law Journal, 2006,  at p421-p322  [3] Otim, Michael, and Wierda, Marieke, ‘Justice at Juba: International Obligations and Local Demands in Northern Uganda’, in Waddell and Clark eds., Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa, pp.21-28

negative: Israel's military operations harmed the chances of peace in the long term:  The long-term security of Israel rests with a stable peace agreement with the Palestinians, not in attempts to bludgeon Hamas into a truce 'on Israel's terms'. To the extent that Israel's large scale assault on Gaza eliminated the hopes of such an agreement, the attacks worsened Israel's long-term security.(10)  Operation Cast Lead ignored history, which teaches that there is no military solution to peace with the Palestinians. As a Daily Star Editorial argued, "For the Israelis, once they have exercised this latest spasm of gratuitous bloodletting, there will be yet another opportunity to accept the oft-proved impossibility of a military solution. The Palestinian people will not be battered into submission, no amount of air strikes will make the core issues in the moribund peace process go away, and all of the same difficult decisions will still be waiting when the dust settles."(18) Thus Operation Cast Lead actually undermined future peace by once more making Israelis believe they can fight their way to a solution, which they cannot. As Nicholas Kristoff argues, "What we’re seeing in the Middle East is the Boomerang Syndrome. Arab terrorism built support for right-wing Israeli politicians, who took harsh actions against Palestinians, who responded with more terrorism, and so on. Extremists on each side sustain the other."(10)  Israel cannot stop rocket attacks by military action alone; eventually a political deal will be needed.(19) Operation Cast Lead emboldened the anti-negotiation side of Israeli politics, however, which focus on their claim that Israel should not negotiate with Hamas. However, Hamas was democratically elected, and so Israel must make peace with them. If Hamas was an authoritarian regime, Israel could possible attempt to get rid of it and make peace with the Palestinians in Gaza separately. But, because Hamas was democratically elected, any efforts by Israel to destroy them will be seen in Gaza as an effort to destroy the Palestinians and their democratic will. This would not enable any long-term peace with the Palestinians. Therefore, a long-term peace depends on working with Hamas, rather than attempting to destroy them.(20) Instead, Israel pursued Operation Cast Lead, which included an Israeli ground assault in Gaza, the excessive force of which is likely to create more terrorists in the long run.(10) The fact that Hamas was always going to survive Israel's assault meant that Operation Cast Lead was always going to help to consolidate the legitimacy of the Hamas movement, and to ensure that all the efforts of Israel to eliminate that fundamental pillar of resistance will produce the reverse result.(22)  Israel's offensive gave Iran and its allies a way to pressure Egypt, Jordan and other Arab 'moderates'. Like the Lebanon war of 2006, Israel's battle with Hamas in Gaza produced a schism among Muslim states. Iran and its Lebanon based ally Hezbollah have joined Hamas's Damascus-based leadership in calling for a new intifada, or uprising, against Israel -- and also against the governments of Egypt and Jordan, which are accused of silently supporting Israel's air attacks.(23) Israel’s ruthless attack on Gaza and the massive civilian casualties it has inflicted has severely damaged the nation's moral stature in the world. This moral deficit will cause problems for Israel in its future engagements in the world. Therefore long term peace in the region was harmed by Operation Cast Lead, and so it was not justified.

negative: Sharing Jerusalem is necessary for peace  The only sustainable solution is to divide and then share Jerusalem, and the Haram-Temple Mount. No final deal will be possible if one side or the other is not willing to embrace this. Sharing Jerusalem would involve acknowledging and respecting each other’s claims which would extend to the other problems preventing agreement. (1)  Sharing is the only solution that leads to peace, as the Palestinians in East Jerusalem will not tolerate permanent Israeli governance. Peace will always be a trade-off; Israel needs security while the Palestinians need territory and a viable capital city which they have dreamed of having in East Jerusalem for decades. (9)(5) In any peace deal Israel will have to accept that their security forces cannot be in control of Muslim areas. The Palestinians won’t trust them as a result of decades where they have not been fair to Palestinians and have been abusive rather than protective.(2) All this means that Israeli rule in East Jerusalem can never be legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinians, and so long term peace can never emerge as long as this rule continues.  French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in 2008: "There cannot be peace without recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two states and the guarantee of free access to the holy places for all religions."(3) There has actually been recent recognition of this fact on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Hady Amr, Director of Brookings Doha Center, wrote in 2007: "At a recent closed-door gathering of former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hosted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution...had come to realize just how painful the issue of Jerusalem was for both sides, that neither side could feel whole without Jerusalem, and that separation arrangements were unworkable when emotions flared over a few feet of Jerusalem stone. Although it took a decade, the Israelis realized that they could not be secure from Palestinian rancor if they deprived Muslim and Christian Palestinians of sovereignty over the Muslim Noble Sanctuary and the holy Christian churches. The Palestinian negotiators also acknowledged the corollary Israeli need for sovereignty over not only the Wailing Wall, but also the Jewish Temple Mount."(4) A poll in 2000 showed some 40 percent of Israelis were ready to give up Arab East Jerusalem without even knowing what they would get in return.(1) While it is an unlikely solution most of the more likely methods have already been tried so new more unconventional solutions need to be tried. The division of Jerusalem could be such a solution that would kick start the rest of the peace process. The benefits of ending the conflict would be immense.(4)

negative: A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous “islands” of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13)  In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.

negative: The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as “Judea and Samaria”. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3)

negative: global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Israel has the right to claim minimal territory to ensure security  Israel has been the victim of multiple major illegal wars of aggression on the part of the Arab world, most notably in 1948 and 1967. These wars invalidate any special claim made by Arabs and Palestinians to pre-1967 territory, and justify Israel in keeping as much territory as is necessary to secure itself against these hostile states. Israel could have gone much further and taken more territory than it did in 1967 (as it was easily winning the war), but instead it restricted itself to only taking the territory that was necessary for it to create security buffer. [1] When peace deals have allowed Israel to improve its security through giving up land historically, it has done so, for example when it returned the Sinai peninsula to Egypt in 1982 in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt, or when Israel returned the small swath of Jordanian territory it held when King Hussain of Jordan wanted to make peace. To date, Israel has withdrawn from approximately 93 percent of the territories it captured. In return for peace with Syria and an end to Palestinian terror, it is prepared to withdraw from most of the remaining 7% in dispute, although not all. Israel remains committed to trading land for peace, and never annexed the West Bank or Gaza Strip because it expected to return part of these territories in negotiations. When the Palestinians finally declared that they would recognize Israel and renounce terrorism, Israel agreed to begin to withdraw. Since 1993, Israel has turned over approximately 80% of the Gaza Strip and more than 40% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. Thus, Israel's objection is not so much against returning any of the land captured in 1967, but against returning absolutely all of it and going back completely to the 1967 borders, as this would mean giving up territories vital for Israel's security. The minimal slivers of territory that Israel it seeks to maintain through a peace settlement (after returning 90% of the pre-1967 territory), is very important to its national security as it offers a buffer against future Arab wars of aggression. This why Ehud Olmert stressed that only most of the occupied territory could be returned. He still argued that some had to be kept for security reasons: “We can never totally return to the indefensible pre-1967 borders, ... We simply cannot afford to make Israel [9 miles] wide again at its center. We can't allow the Palestinians to be a couple [miles] from [Tel Aviv's] Ben Gurion Airport in the age of shoulder-fire missiles with the capacity to shoot down jumbo jets.” [2] Moreover, Israel is in an anomalous situation: It is an embattled democracy that historically has had to defend itself repeatedly against the armies of neighbouring Arab states whose declared goal was nothing less than Israel's eradication. The Israel Defense Forces could not afford to miscalculate. While other nations, like France or Kuwait, have been overrun, occupied, and nonetheless have survived to reconstitute themselves, Israel, in contrast, cannot depend on obtaining a second chance. Miscalculation on its part could have had devastating consequences and, thus, its situation is unique. [3] For this critical purpose of national survival, therefore, the annexed land serves a legally legitimate purpose, especially considering that the Arab wars of aggression were what caused the annexation of the land in the first place. In such circumstances, a nation that won a defensive war has a right to set terms to ensure against future wars of aggression.  [1] Johnson, Paul. “A History of the Jews”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1987.  [2] Thinkexist.com. “Ehud Olmert Quotes”. Thinkexist.com   [3] Amidror, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov. “Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders”. Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. 2005.

negative: Israel remembers past failures of the international community when it came to Jews and doubts the UN’s Impartiality  Regardless of whether some degree of outside impetus might be of benefit, the UN is a particularly bad actor for pressuring Israel.  For one thing, the UN is not viewed as an impartial entity. Israeli government officials have repeatedly claimed it is biased against them, and the UN has not tried particularly hard to dispel these impressions with its recent conferences at on racism, most prominently at Durban in South Africa, dissolving into denunciations of Zionism and holocaust comparisons. [1]  Reinforcing this is the persistent feeling that the world did nothing for the Jews when they were facing annihilation, which feeds into the narrative that while the international community may talk endlessly about Palestinian rights, they would do little for Israelis if the balance of power ever shifted. When Israeli politicians can state that they know exactly what would happen (a second Holocaust) if Arabs were to ever defeat them they are likely to see this action on the part of the UN reinforcing all of their negative impressions.  This in turn may well produce a siege mentality in which they view themselves as on their own and become unwilling to make any concessions. This would be especially true if the United States were to seem to abandon them by at least abstaining on UN recognition.  [1] Braun, Elihai, ‘The UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa’, Jewish Virtual Library,

negative: Israel's military operations were disproportionate and harmed too many civilians:  The killing of over 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 4,500 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire. For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years after Israel’s redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because Israel maintained effective control over it.(15) The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious, but the numbers speak for themselves: 800 Palestinians, most of them civilians, were killed during Operation Cast Lead. In contrast, around a dozen Israelis were killed, many of them soldiers.(17) Precision strikes which avoided civilian deaths were never going to be possible in the crowded Gaza Strip. As Akiva Eldar argued: "The tremendous population density in the Gaza Strip does not allow a 'surgical operation' over an extended period that would minimize damage to civilian populations. The difficult images from the Strip will soon replace those of the damage inflicted by Qassam rockets in the western Negev. The scale of losses, which works in 'favor' of the Palestinians, will return Israel to the role of Goliath."(24)  It is notable that Israel is more culpable for the civilian deaths it causes than Hamas is with its rockets, as Israel had options (such as ending the blockade and negotiating with Hamas) which could have caused fewer civilian deaths, whereas Hamas did not. Rather Hamas responds as the disproportionately weaker party; the Palestinians were compelled to use the crude means at their disposal to free their lands from Israeli occupation, even if this meant being unable to target them well and some civilian deaths resulting.(25) Israel's Operation Cast Lead was less legitimate as it was not Israel's only option, and so cannot be regarded as proportionate. Furthermore, Israel's use of white phosphorous in Gaza was a humanitarian crime. The use of white phosphorous by Israel to shield its military movements in Gaza was a humanitarian crime, as the chemical causes serious health problems to civilians that inhale it. And, by all accounts, the chemical was inhaled by many Gazan civilians.(25)

negative: Dividing Jerusalem would harm Israeli society:  Besides the aforementioned security concerns, many other harms would also result to Israeli society if Jerusalem were divided. Jerusalem is simply too important to Israeli society to be divided. Ben Gurion explain in 1937, "for the Jews, the millions of the Jews who do not know the difference between the Sharon [or the Jezre'el] and the Valley [or the difference between Rehavia and the Old City] the name Jerusalem means everything."(20) This remains true today: Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky said in 2000, "Above all, Jerusalem is the base of our identity."(21) This is why sharing Jerusalem is forbidden under Israeli law. In 1980, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, passed the "Basic Law". This proclaimed, "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel." This makes it unlawful, under Israeli law, to now divide Jerusalem and share it as a joint capital with a Palestinian state, and shows how deep Israeli attachment to an undivided Jerusalem is.(15)  Dividing Jerusalem would destroy the city, Roni Aloni-Sadovnik argued in 2006: "Yet there is a truth that has yet to be spoken: Any division of Jerusalem will bring about the city's destruction. Maybe, after 3,000 years of bloodletting and destruction, the time has come to understand that the road to peace does not run through Jerusalem."(18) A divided Jerusalem would also be less viable economically. Dividing a city in two means cutting off commerce between the two sides. It means cutting markets in half, reducing the market of suppliers for consumers and consumers for suppliers by 50%. This is highly problematic for a city that aims to become an global centre, and this is even more problematic when the city involved is considered to be a holy one by three faiths, all of whom want to see it prosperous and strong. Therefore dividing Jerusalem would be too harmful to Israeli society and to Jerusalem itself, and so it should not be divided.

negative: The inalienable rights of refugees are not negotiable, nor are they subject to the interests of the state which they would be returning to. International law considers agreements between an occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution. [1] Therefore the interests of the state of Israel are not legitimate reasons to deny the right of return which is owed to Palestinian refugees. Moreover, the right of return is feasible in Israel due to the availability of empty land. 80% of Israelis live in 15 percent of the land and that the remaining 20% live on 85% of the land that belongs to the refugees. Further, of the 20%, 18% live in Palestinian cities while the remaining 2% live in kibbutzim and moshavs. By contrast, more than 6,000 refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip, while over the barbed wire their lands are practically empty. [2]  [1] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition.   [2] Sakhnini, Nizar. "Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing." Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. 12 July 2004.

negative: The characterization of the 1948 Palestinian exodus as forced by Israel is incorrect. In the very same passage quoted opposite, Morris goes on to argue that only "an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of (Israeli) expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' to that effect". [1] Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in Palestine, testified that "the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion." [2] Thus, Israel is not responsible for acts of flight from Palestine which were largely motivated by imagined fears, which were the cause of almost all the Palestinian refugees, as they were not directly expelled or threatened by the IDF.  The Palestinians of 1948 may have made a tragic choice, for themselves and for their descendants, but this does not make Israel morally responsible for this choice and its consequences, as in almost every case Israel was not to blame, and it is impossible to isolate and identify those few where it may have been. Even if Israel were somehow morally responsible, it does not follow from this that Israel should accept an unlimited Palestinian right of return on the part of every refugee, considering the massive harms this would inflict on the state of Israel (outlined below). Rather, as Israel has proposed in the past, the Palestinians could accept words of contrition from Israel, and generous allocations of international aid, in place of the right of every refugee and his descendants to go back to his old home inside Israel. [3] This would be a more acceptable alternative to Israel, and still help to heal Palestinian wounds.  [1] Morris, Benny. "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". Cambridge University Press. 2004  [2] UN Progress Report, 16 September 1948, Part 1 Section V, paragraph 6; Part 3 Section I  [3] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.