- POINT 1: Israel began the war to crush the Palestinians and the hopes for peace.
- COUNTERPOINT: International leaders, including many Arab governments, West Bank Palestinians and Gaza residents all blame Hamas for starting the war by continuing its rocket attacks against Israel and refusing to renew the 6-month truce that expired on Dec. 19th
- Supporting Evidence: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and PA President Mahmoud Abbas all blamed Hamas for starting the war. [1]
- Supporting Evidence: PA President Mahmoud Abbas: “We talked to them (Hamas) and we told them 'please, we ask you, do not end the truce. Let the truce continue and not stop' so that we could have avoided what happened." Al-Jazeera, Dec. 28, 2008
- Supporting Evidence: Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit harshly censured Hamas, holding it responsible for Israel’s military operation. “Egypt had repeatedly cautioned against continuing the situation and that whoever did not listen (Hamas) should assume responsibility and not blame others.” Public statement, Dec. 27, 2008 [2]
- Supporting Evidence: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and PA President Mahmoud Abbas all blamed Hamas for starting the war. [1]
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel’s war is not with Palestinians, but with Hamas. Hamas does not represent all Palestinians. It is an extremist party that has led the terrorist campaign against Israel, is supported by Iran, and fiercely opposes a two-state solution.
- Supporting Evidence: “The Palestinian cause has been shattered by Hamas…. They have already blown the chance of creating a Palestinian state by splitting off from the legitimate authority of Abu Mazen… tolerating Hamas will be an Arab sin as long as the Arabs are supporting the Palestinian cause.“--Tariq Al-Homayed, editor of Al Sharq Al-Awsat, October 8, 2008 [3]
- Supporting Evidence: "In giving up its national Palestinian aspirations and succumbing to the policies of the Iranian-Syrian axis, Hamas…is booby-trapping Palestinian society….”—Ahmad Al-Jarallah, editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, June 18, 2007 [4]
- Supporting Evidence: “The Palestinian cause has been shattered by Hamas…. They have already blown the chance of creating a Palestinian state by splitting off from the legitimate authority of Abu Mazen… tolerating Hamas will be an Arab sin as long as the Arabs are supporting the Palestinian cause.“--Tariq Al-Homayed, editor of Al Sharq Al-Awsat, October 8, 2008 [3]
- COUNTERPOINT: Hamas has systematically dashed hopes for peace and a two-state solution since the Oslo Accords. It vehemently opposes a two-state solution, and was responsible for almost half of the suicide attacks against Israel during the Oslo years.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel’s military operation was an act of self-defense, a right granted to all sovereign states in Chapter 51 of the UN Charter. Terrorists from Gaza had fired over 5,000 rockets and mortars at civilians in southern Israel between 2005 and 2008. The rockets grew progressively longer range and more lethal, putting almost 1 million Israelis in firing range.
- COUNTERPOINT: International leaders, including many Arab governments, West Bank Palestinians and Gaza residents all blame Hamas for starting the war by continuing its rocket attacks against Israel and refusing to renew the 6-month truce that expired on Dec. 19th
- POINT 2: Gaza is the world’s most densely populated area, and Gazans were imprisoned with no place to hide from Israel’s attacks.
- COUNTERPOINT: This claim presents a false image. Many other parts of the world, such as Monaco, Singapore, and Hong Kong are far more densely populated. The population of Gaza is concentrated in towns, and wide stretches of empty land surround them.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel used surgical strikes and precision munitions, and warned residents before an impending attack so they could move to safer non-combat areas located just blocks away.
- COUNTERPOINT: This claim presents a false image. Many other parts of the world, such as Monaco, Singapore, and Hong Kong are far more densely populated. The population of Gaza is concentrated in towns, and wide stretches of empty land surround them.
- POINT 3: Israel forced Hamas’ aggression because it did not open the Gaza-Israel border crossings as it promised to do in the ceasefire agreement of June 19, 2008.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel does not control Gaza’s southern border crossings. Egypt does per the “Agreement on Movement and Access” signed in the fall of 2005.
- COUNTERPOINT: Hamas’ short term goal may be re-opening of the border crossings, but its long term goal is the destruction of Israel.
- Supporting Evidence: Hamas’ founding document calls for the murder of Jews, the obliteration of Israel, and its replacement with an Islamist theocracy. Hamas Covenant, 1988 [6]
- Supporting Evidence: "The annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine. This will be followed by a greater blessing, Allah be praised, with the establishment of a Caliphate that will rule the land and will be pleasing to men and God." Hamas cleric Muhsen Abu It’a, July 13, 2008 [7]
- Supporting Evidence: Hamas’ founding document calls for the murder of Jews, the obliteration of Israel, and its replacement with an Islamist theocracy. Hamas Covenant, 1988 [6]
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel never agreed to open border crossings in the Egypt-brokered ceasefire. It only agreed to ease restrictions, which it did.
- Supporting Evidence: “If that [ceasefire] holds, Israel will allow some construction materials and merchandise into Gaza, slightly easing an economic blockade that it has imposed since Hamas wrested control of the strip from its secularist political rival, Fatah, a year ago.” Economist, June 18, 2008 [8]
- Supporting Evidence: From June 2007, when Hamas conducted its brutal coup in Gaza, until the ceasefire agreement in June 2008, Israel permitted a monthly average of 1930 truckloads of imports a month. In the four months after the ceasefire, it eased these restrictions, allowing an average of 3,555 truckloads of imports a month. [9]
- Supporting Evidence: “If that [ceasefire] holds, Israel will allow some construction materials and merchandise into Gaza, slightly easing an economic blockade that it has imposed since Hamas wrested control of the strip from its secularist political rival, Fatah, a year ago.” Economist, June 18, 2008 [8]
- COUNTERPOINT: This claim puts the cart before the horse. Hamas’ terrorism forced Israel to close the border crossings. Israel had left all of them open when it evacuated from Gaza in August 2005 until escalating terrorism from Gaza, and the Hamas coup in June 2007, forced Israel to change its policies.
- COUNTERPOINT: Hamas determines whether the crossings are open. Israel offered to reopen the crossings if Hamas ended its war against Israel, ceased terrorist attacks and committed to a two-state solution. Hamas refused.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel does not control Gaza’s southern border crossings. Egypt does per the “Agreement on Movement and Access” signed in the fall of 2005.
- POINT 4: Israel killed thousands of Gazans.
- COUNTERPOINT: The exact number of casualties is still being determined. Israel estimates 1100 to 1200 casualties, while a local Gaza doctor estimated approximately 500 to 600.
- Supporting Evidence: "The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter,” a physician at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital told Italy’s newpaper, Corriere della Sera. He asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. Jan. 22, 2009 [10]
- Supporting Evidence: "The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter,” a physician at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital told Italy’s newpaper, Corriere della Sera. He asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. Jan. 22, 2009 [10]
- COUNTERPOINT: Palestinian officials and Hamas are unreliable sources. They have consistently inflated casualty numbers to win international sympathy and indict Israel.
- COUNTERPOINT: The toll includes casualties inflicted by Hamas. Hamas had murdered an estimated 35 to 80 members of the rival political party, Fatah, for alleged collaboration with Israel in the first two weeks of Israel’s military operation, and wounded dozens of others.
- COUNTERPOINT: The exact number of casualties is still being determined. Israel estimates 1100 to 1200 casualties, while a local Gaza doctor estimated approximately 500 to 600.
- POINT 5: Israel targeted civilians. The vast majority of Gaza’s fatalities were civilian men, women and children.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel underscored that its target was Hamas operatives, weapons, and infrastructure. Hamas has boasted that it has 15,000 to 20,000 armed and trained fighters
- COUNTERPOINT: 75% to 85% of casualties were terrorist operatives, according to the IDF, the U.N., and other sources.
- COUNTERPOINT: Hamas intentionally exaggerated the proportion of civilian casualties.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel scrupulously tried to avoid harm to innocent civilians by using surgical strikes and precision munitions, warning Gaza’s civilians before an attack so they could flee to safety despite the strategic disadvantage this posed to Israel, and aborting multiple operations if civilians might be harmed.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel did more than any other Western democracy has ever done to keep the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths low.
- Supporting Evidence: During NATO’s two-month military operation in Kosovo in 1999, a minimum of 2/3 of fatalities were civilians (150 combatants versus 500 to 1500 civilians). No NATO forces were killed. NATO deemed the operation a great success. “There is always a cost to defeat an evil. It never comes free, unfortunately. But the cost of failure to defeat a great evil is far higher.” Jamie Shea, NATO spokesman, BBC News, May 31, 1999 [13]
- Supporting Evidence: "I don't think there's ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza." British Colonel (ret.) Richard Kemp, BBC TV News, Jan. 18, 2009 [14]
- Supporting Evidence: During NATO’s two-month military operation in Kosovo in 1999, a minimum of 2/3 of fatalities were civilians (150 combatants versus 500 to 1500 civilians). No NATO forces were killed. NATO deemed the operation a great success. “There is always a cost to defeat an evil. It never comes free, unfortunately. But the cost of failure to defeat a great evil is far higher.” Jamie Shea, NATO spokesman, BBC News, May 31, 1999 [13]
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel underscored that its target was Hamas operatives, weapons, and infrastructure. Hamas has boasted that it has 15,000 to 20,000 armed and trained fighters
- POINT 6: The high number of Palestinian casualties versus the low number of Israeli casualties proves that Israel’s response was disproportionate.
- COUNTERPOINT: Relative numbers of casualties have nothing to do with the law of military proportionality.
- COUNTERPOINT: The difference in casualty numbers occurred because Israel and Hamas had opposite goals. Israel actively tried to prevent Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties.
- Supporting Evidence: Israel’s strong civil defense system—warning sirens, infrastructure of bomb shelters, and preventive measures such as closing school—prevented mass civilian casualties when Hamas bombs struck schools, hospitals, and residential apartments.
- Supporting Evidence: "I don't think there's ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza." British Colonel (ret.) Richard Kemp, BBC TV News, Jan. 18, 2009 [16]
- Supporting Evidence: Israel warned Gaza civilians by personal telephone calls, widely distributed leaflets and radio broadcasts about impending attacks so they could move to safer areas. 980,000 leaflets in Arabic dropped 30,000 phone calls to Gaza Strip and Rafah residents 3 days, broke into radio transmissions to transmit warnings. [17]
- Supporting Evidence: When Hamas gathered human shields to prevent attacks on their arms depots, Israel fired sound bombs so the civilians would scatter away to safer areas. [18]
- Supporting Evidence: Israel’s strong civil defense system—warning sirens, infrastructure of bomb shelters, and preventive measures such as closing school—prevented mass civilian casualties when Hamas bombs struck schools, hospitals, and residential apartments.
- COUNTERPOINT: Hamas’ goal was to maximize civilian casualties, in flagrant violation of international law. It targeted Israeli civilians. It intentionally put Palestinian civilians in danger, using them and civilian buildings as human shields.
- Supporting Evidence: Hamas hid its weapons in schools, mosques, hospitals, and residential homes. During Israel’s military operation, Hamas leaders abandoned Gaza’s civilians and put their headquarters under Shifa Hospital. [19]
- Supporting Evidence: Hamas literally dragged unwilling civilians to serve as human shields when they knew an attack was imminent. [20]
- Supporting Evidence: Gazan civilians charged that Hamas forced them to stay in homes and facilities used by gunmen, even though they knew Israel would mount counter attacks. [21]
- Supporting Evidence: Hamas fired from UN, hospital, and civilian facilities, turning them into military targets. [22]
- Supporting Evidence: Hamas hid its weapons in schools, mosques, hospitals, and residential homes. During Israel’s military operation, Hamas leaders abandoned Gaza’s civilians and put their headquarters under Shifa Hospital. [19]
- COUNTERPOINT: Relative numbers of casualties have nothing to do with the law of military proportionality.
- POINT 7: Israel firebombed and carpet-bombed Gaza, reducing it to rubble.
- COUNTERPOINT: Gaza was not reduced to rubble. Israel employed surgical strikes and precision munitions that targeted Hamas infrastructure and operatives. Unfortunately, Hamas locations were civilian structures and areas. Nonetheless, only small portions of Gaza were affected.
- Supporting Evidence: "There had been no carpet bombing of large areas, no firebombing of complete suburbs. Targets had been selected and then hit, often several times, but almost always with precision munitions. Buildings nearby had been damaged and there had been some clear mistakes... But, in most the cases, I saw the primary target had borne the brunt… For the most part, I was struck by how cosmetically unchanged Gaza appeared to be." British journalist Tim Butcher, Jan. 20, 2009. [23]
- Supporting Evidence: “The Gaza I saw was societally intact. There were no homeless, walking wounded, hungry or underdressed people. The streets were busy, shops were hung with embroidered dresses and gigantic cooking pots, the markets were full of fresh meat and beautiful produce - the red radishes were bigger than grapefruits. Mothers accompanied by a 13-year-old boy told me they were bored of leaving home to sit on rubble all day to tell the press how they'd survived.” Journalist Yvonne Greene, March 2, 2009 [24]
- Supporting Evidence: "There had been no carpet bombing of large areas, no firebombing of complete suburbs. Targets had been selected and then hit, often several times, but almost always with precision munitions. Buildings nearby had been damaged and there had been some clear mistakes... But, in most the cases, I saw the primary target had borne the brunt… For the most part, I was struck by how cosmetically unchanged Gaza appeared to be." British journalist Tim Butcher, Jan. 20, 2009. [23]
- COUNTERPOINT: Hamas is responsible for whatever damage was done. It chose war, and it embedded its terrorist infrastructure in civilian areas.
- COUNTERPOINT: Gaza was not reduced to rubble. Israel employed surgical strikes and precision munitions that targeted Hamas infrastructure and operatives. Unfortunately, Hamas locations were civilian structures and areas. Nonetheless, only small portions of Gaza were affected.
- POINT 8: Israel intentionally created a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
- COUNTERPOINT: Just the opposite is true. Israel continued to ensure goods reached Gaza during its 22-day military operation precisely to avoid a humanitarian crisis. 59, 280 tons of humanitarian supplies were delivered in 2, 281 trucks. On Jan. 7th, Israel declared a daily 3-hour ceasefire to transport goods, though Hamas did not observe the ceasefire.
- Supporting Evidence: During the military operation, Israel ensured delivery of the following: 59,280 tons of humanitarian supplies in 2,281 trucks. 3,604,250 liters of fuel conveyed through Nahal Oz and Kerem Shalom. 681 dual nationals evacuated from Gaza. 15 ambulances transferred from the West Bank on behalf of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. 68 people evacuated to Israel for medical treatment, including two injured children. Numerous infrastructural repairs - sewage, water and electricity. [25]
- Supporting Evidence: During the military operation, Israel ensured delivery of the following: 59,280 tons of humanitarian supplies in 2,281 trucks. 3,604,250 liters of fuel conveyed through Nahal Oz and Kerem Shalom. 681 dual nationals evacuated from Gaza. 15 ambulances transferred from the West Bank on behalf of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. 68 people evacuated to Israel for medical treatment, including two injured children. Numerous infrastructural repairs - sewage, water and electricity. [25]
- COUNTERPOINT: Hamas caused whatever humanitarian crisis ensued. Hamas snipers killed workers transporting the humanitarian goods. It seized the aid intended for Gazan civilians, gave it exclusively to Hamas operatives, or placed it in Hamas-owned stores to sell at inflated prices.
- Supporting Evidence: “On January 11, 2009, in a Hamas internet forum, surfers complained about the confiscations of flour donations in Dir-al'Balech by Hamas elements. There is also a description of how Hamas transfers the donations to its own warehouses, and distributes them to only two bakeries in the city - Albana Bakery and Al-Tzalah Union Bakery - both of which belong to Hamas.” [26]
- Supporting Evidence: After Israeli operations ended, the UN suspended deliveries of humanitarian supplies because Hamas raided the supplies and threatened the aid workers. "The decision was to suspend aid distribution in the Gaza Strip until the problem with the Hamas authorities is resolved and until the intervention of the Hamas authorities in the work of UNRWA is stopped." UN official Sami Mshasha, Feb. 6, 2009. [27]
- Supporting Evidence: “On January 11, 2009, in a Hamas internet forum, surfers complained about the confiscations of flour donations in Dir-al'Balech by Hamas elements. There is also a description of how Hamas transfers the donations to its own warehouses, and distributes them to only two bakeries in the city - Albana Bakery and Al-Tzalah Union Bakery - both of which belong to Hamas.” [26]
- COUNTERPOINT: Just the opposite is true. Israel continued to ensure goods reached Gaza during its 22-day military operation precisely to avoid a humanitarian crisis. 59, 280 tons of humanitarian supplies were delivered in 2, 281 trucks. On Jan. 7th, Israel declared a daily 3-hour ceasefire to transport goods, though Hamas did not observe the ceasefire.
- POINT 9: Israel’s continuing unjust blockade of Gaza will cause more humanitarian crises.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel has not and cannot impose a blockade on Gaza because it does not control all of Gaza’s borders
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel’s sanctions—restrictions on the transport of goods—are not unjust. The international community has repeatedly used similar measures to change or control dangerous regimes. Hamas is dedicated to Israel’s destruction and the murder of Jews. As with other international sanctions, Israel’s goal is to force Hamas to moderate its positions or to fall from power.
- Supporting Evidence: The international community used sanctions to end Apartheid in South Africa, keep Saddam Hussein from rebuilding his nuclear program, force Kadhafi to get rid of his WMD, and to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear program. [29]
- Supporting Evidence: The sanctions were working. "Hamas was losing popularity before this operation. It was losing popularity because it had failed to open the crossings," according to Palestinian-American professor Rashid Khalidi. [Jan. 5, 2009] A reliable Palestinian poll, indicated Hamas’ popularity among Gazans plummeted from 37% in June 2006 to 22% in Nov. 2008. [30]
- Supporting Evidence: The international community used sanctions to end Apartheid in South Africa, keep Saddam Hussein from rebuilding his nuclear program, force Kadhafi to get rid of his WMD, and to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear program. [29]
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel is committed to ensuring that the sanctions do not cause a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. During and after the war, it continued to authorize adequate shipments of humanitarian goods.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel has no obligation to open its borders to residents of Gaza which is governed by Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel has not and cannot impose a blockade on Gaza because it does not control all of Gaza’s borders
- POINT 10: Israel committed war crimes.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel scrupulously followed international laws of engagement, targeting only terrorist operatives, weapons, and infrastructure, and going beyond normal standards for Western democracies in protecting civilians and supplying its enemy with medical care and humanitarian goods.
- COUNTERPOINT: Hamas systematically and callously violated all humanitarian and international law by targeting civilians, using human shields, and stealing humanitarian and medical goods from civilians. Hamas should be prosecuted for systematic war crimes that violate all civilized norms of warfare.
- COUNTERPOINT: Israel scrupulously followed international laws of engagement, targeting only terrorist operatives, weapons, and infrastructure, and going beyond normal standards for Western democracies in protecting civilians and supplying its enemy with medical care and humanitarian goods.
- POINT 11: IDF soldiers admitted they had wantonly killed civilians in Gaza.
- COUNTERPOINT: The few soldiers who made these claims could specify only two incidents that they later admitted were based on hearsay. The IDF found that one incident had never occurred. The other allegation, that an IDF sniper shot a woman and her two daughters, was also false. The sniper had fired warning shots for them to move away from a dangerous area. They were not harmed.
- COUNTERPOINT: Several mainstream newspapers that had run the story on their front pages without first checking its accuracy, were forced to write corrections.
- COUNTERPOINT: The few soldiers who made these claims could specify only two incidents that they later admitted were based on hearsay. The IDF found that one incident had never occurred. The other allegation, that an IDF sniper shot a woman and her two daughters, was also false. The sniper had fired warning shots for them to move away from a dangerous area. They were not harmed.
 |
|
| HOME | ABOUT SWU | VIDEO | AUDIO | FLYERS | SIGNS | TEACHING TOOLS | CHAPTERS | STORE | MY SHOPPING CART | DONATE |   |