1) Settlement Expansion

Accusation: Israel expands settlements → preventing peace.

Response:

“Israel’s security concerns are not theoretical — they are based on

decades of attacks originating from areas we withdrew from.
Settlement policies are linked to security buffers, not annexation plans.
Israel remains willing to negotiate final borders when there is a credible
and demilitarized peace partner willing to recognize Israel’s right to
exist.”

Killer Add-on (use if attacked further):

“Land can be negotiated. Lost lives cannot.”

2) Civilian Displacement in Gaza

Accusation: Israel displaces civilians.

Response:

“Israel issues advance warnings — leaflets, SMS alerts, evacuation

corridors — before strikes.
No military in the world does this at such scale.
Hamas embeds weapons in hospitals, schools, and residential buildings,
turning civilians into shields.
Blame must be placed on those who use civilians as cover, not those
trying to avoid civilian casualties.”

3) High Civilian Casualties

Accusation: “Unprecedented civilian deaths.”

Response:

“Civilian casualties are tragic and unacceptable — and Israel continuously

adjusts targeting protocols to reduce harm.
The tragedy arises from urban warfare forced by terrorist groups
who deliberately operate inside civilian areas.
The goal is neutralizing terror infrastructure, not harming civilians.”

5) Cross-Border Strikes

Accusation: Striking threats in Syria, Lebanon, etc.

Response:

“Israel targets active terror infrastructure before it is used to harm

civilians.
These are preventive security operations, not aggression.
Every sovereign state has the right to neutralize imminent threats.”

6) Checkpoints & Movement Restrictions

Accusation: Harsh checkpoints.

Response:

“Checkpoints were implemented after a wave of suicide bombings that

killed hundreds of Israeli civilians.
Whenever security improves, restrictions are eased.
Security measures are a response to violence — not the cause of it.”

7) “Israel doesn’t want peace.”

Accusation: Prefers force over negotiation.

Response:

“Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and continues
cooperation with multiple regional partners.
The challenge is not Israel’s refusal to negotiate — but the refusal of
certain groups to accept Israel’s right to exist without violence.”
“Israel has supported and implemented multiple UN-backed peace
frameworks, including Resolutions 242, 338, 1850, 1860, 2712, and
2720. Israel has agreed to ceasefires, humanitarian pauses, and
diplomatic processes. The repeated breakdowns occur when Hamas uses
these pauses to rebuild tunnels, restock weapons, and resume rocket
attacks. Israel supports peace that prevents future violence — not
temporary pauses that guarantee the next war.”

Q8. “Why does Israel not immediately recognize a Palestinian

state?”

A:
“Recognition must be tied to security guarantees.
A state that launches rockets, shelters terror groups, or denies Israel’s
right to exist cannot form the basis of a stable peace.
Statehood must come with responsibility, not violence.”

Q9. “Why does Israel maintain a blockade on Gaza?”

A:
“The blockade is not aimed at civilians — it is aimed at preventing
weapons smuggling to Hamas.
Food, medicine, fuel, and humanitarian aid enter daily when security
conditions allow.
If rocket attacks stop, restrictions ease — that is the consistent pattern.”

Q10. “If Israel is so strong militarily, why does it fear

negotiations?”

A:
“Strength does not remove caution.
Negotiations must be with partners who choose dialogue over violence,
not groups who see ceasefires as opportunities to rearm.
Israel seeks real peace, not temporary pauses between attacks.”

Accusation: “Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.”

Rebuttal: Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people. Israel
targets Hamas military infrastructure, not civilians. If Israel intended harm
to civilians, evacuation corridors, humanitarian pause windows, and
targeted strike warnings would not exist.

Accusation: “Israel radicalizes the region.”

Rebuttal: Radicalization is driven by extremist ideology and foreign state
funding. Iran’s weapons and training networks are the proven backbone of
Hamas and Hezbollah operations.

Accusation: “Settlements provoke terrorism.”

Rebuttal: Terror attacks against Jews in the region predate the existence
of the modern state of Israel — and certainly predate settlements.
Terrorism is a cause, not a consequence.

Accusation: “Israel escalates conflict.”

Rebuttal: Escalation occurs when sovereign borders are violated. Hamas
initiates hostilities; Israel responds. Any state represented in this chamber
would defend its citizens under similar circumstances.

“Is the delegate aware that Hamas’ official charter calls for the
destruction of my state? How does one negotiate with that?”

“Does the delegate acknowledge that Hamas uses schools, hospitals, and
residential areas to hide weaponry?”

“Is the delegate suggesting Israel should simply not defend its civilians
when attacked?”

1) Accusation: “Israel deliberately targets civilians in Gaza.”

Allegation Basis: High civilian casualties & airstrikes in residential areas.

Israel’s Defense:

 Israel says it targets military infrastructure, not civilians.

 Civilians are harmed because Hamas embeds weapons, fighters,

and command centers inside homes, schools, and hospitals.

 Israel uses:

o Evacuation warnings

o Roof-knock (non-explosive warning strikes)

o Leaflets / SMS alerts

Key Line to Use:

“Civilian harm is a tragedy — but it is the direct result of terror groups
hiding behind civilians, not Israel targeting them.”
2) Accusation: “The blockade of Gaza is collective punishment.”

Israel’s Defense:

 The blockade was imposed after Hamas seized control of Gaza

in 2007.

 Purpose: to prevent weapons smuggling, not to starve civilians.

 Israel says it allows daily humanitarian aid, fuel, and medical

supplies when security conditions allow.

 Egypt also blockades Gaza — not just Israel.

Key Line to Use:

“A blockade against weapons is not collective punishment — it is
counterterrorism.”

3) Accusation: “Israel targets hospitals and schools.”

Allegation Basis: Airstrikes near civilian infrastructure.

Israel’s Defense:

 Israel presents intelligence evidence (satellite images, maps,

intercepted calls) that Hamas uses hospitals and schools as
weapons depots or command centers.

 Under International Humanitarian Law, a civilian site loses

protected status if used for military purposes.

Key Line:
“If a hospital becomes a military base, responsibility lies with those who
militarize it — not those who try to dismantle it.”

4) Accusation: “Israel uses disproportionate force.”

Israel’s Defense:

 Proportionality in international law does not mean equal

casualties.

 It means military force must be aimed at achieving a

legitimate military objective.
  Israel argues that fighting a heavily armed militant group in
dense urban terrain requires intense operations to eliminate
threats.

Key Line:
“Proportionality is measured by military necessity, not body counts.”

5) Accusation: “Israel does not investigate its own actions.”

Israel’s Defense:

 Israel has independent military and civilian legal review

systems, including:

o Military Advocate General

o Israeli Supreme Court

 Israel points out that many democracies (including the U.S. & UK)
do the same — internal legal review instead of foreign courts.

Key Line:
“Accountability must be real — not political. Israel investigates itself, as
recognized under international law."

1. How does Israel’s military operations in Gaza, causing over

30,000 Palestinian deaths by February 2024, not radicalize
populations and drive jihadist recruitment across the Middle
East?

Answer (Israel’s Defense):

Israel recognizes that civilian casualties are deeply tragic and undesirable.
However, it is important to clarify that Israel’s operations target
Hamas, a U.S., EU, and UN-recognized terrorist organization that
deliberately embeds itself among civilians, uses hospitals and schools as
military bases, and openly encourages martyrdom propaganda for
recruitment.

Israel employs advance evacuation warnings, roof-knock

procedures, humanitarian corridors, and precision strikes to limit
civilian harm — measures that exceed requirements under
international humanitarian law.

Radicalization in the region is primarily fueled by extremist ideology

and state-sponsored propaganda, not Israeli policy itself. Groups like
ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and Hamas recruit by distorting religion and spreading
disinformation, independent of Israeli actions.
Israel’s objective is not to punish civilians, but to prevent future
October 7-type massacres, where Hamas murdered 1,200 civilians,
including children, the elderly, and foreign citizens.

2. Why do settlement policies in the West Bank, criticized as

disproportionate, not fuel anti-Israel sentiment, contributing to
transnational terrorism?

Answer (Israel’s Defense):

Israel’s position is that the West Bank is disputed territory, not
Palestinian sovereign territory — a key legal distinction under international
law. Negotiations under the Oslo Accords assigned Area C to temporary
Israeli administration until a final status agreement. Thus, settlement
presence is a political dispute, not an act of aggression.

Terrorism, however, is not a reaction to settlements; it predates them.

Extremist groups publicly state that their objective is the elimination of
Israel entirely, including within internationally recognized 1967
borders. Therefore, settlements are frequently used as justification,
but not the true cause of radicalization.

Israel remains open to land swaps, negotiated borders, and a two-state

solution — but such agreements can only occur with a partner that
rejects terrorism and recognizes Israel’s right to exist, which
Hamas does not.

3. What measures ensure Israel’s actions against Hamas and

Hezbollah do not escalate regional tensions, and why have they
failed to prevent jihadist growth?

Answer (Israel’s Defense):

Israel coordinates extensively with:

 The United States

 Egypt

 Jordan

 UN peacekeeping missions

 And the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank

to prevent escalation and maintain regional stability. Israel also limits its
operations to targeted threats:

 Striking only military infrastructure

  Sharing intelligence to prevent wider conflict

 Avoiding strikes that would draw additional states directly into war

However, jihadist groups do not grow because of Israeli action — they

grow because:

 They receive funding, weapons, and training from foreign

sponsors, including Iran.

 They use religious indoctrination, misinformation, and social

media radicalization.

 They exploit instability in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon — unrelated to

Israel.

Israel’s military actions are reactive, not expansionist. The real issue is
non-state militant organizations operating outside international
law, not legitimate national defense.

SPEECH – 01
The State of Israel stands today not as an aggressor, but as a nation
forced into perpetual defense against actors who openly seek our
destruction. Groups such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon
do not represent the aspirations of peace-seeking Palestinians, but rather
serve as proxy arms of foreign states, particularly the Islamic
Republic of Iran, whose strategic objective is continual destabilization of
the Middle East.

Israel’s military operations in Gaza are not acts of aggression; they are
precision-based responses to sustained rocket attacks and mass terror
infiltration attempts targeting civilian populations. Any civilian casualties
are deeply regrettable, but they result directly from Hamas embedding
military infrastructure in schools, hospitals, and residential
districts—a violation of International Humanitarian Law.

In the West Bank, Israel’s security policies are not expansionist but
preventive, implemented to counter repeated waves of terror stabbings,
shootings, and bombings. We do not seek escalation—we seek the right
to survive.

Peace will be achieved not when Israel lays down arms, but when terror
organizations stop using civilians as shields and recognise Israel’s
right to exist within secure borders.
1) Why were so many civilians killed in Gaza?

Israel argues the high civilian casualties are a direct result of Hamas
embedding its military infrastructure deep inside civilian areas—such as
homes, hospitals, schools, UN shelters, and dense urban districts.
According to Israel, Hamas uses civilians as human shields and prevents
or discourages evacuation to create international pressure. Israel states it
issues warnings, evacuation alerts, and humanitarian corridors, but
Hamas deliberately obstructs them. Therefore, Israel claims civilian deaths
are an unavoidable consequence of Hamas’ tactics, not intentional
targeting.

2) Why did Israel expand territory into the West Bank, despite legal
objections?

Israel justifies its presence and settlement activity in the West Bank by
claiming historical, biblical, and cultural ties to Judea and Samaria, which
it views as its ancestral homeland. Israel also argues that the territory is
“disputed,” not “occupied,” since it did not belong to a sovereign state
before 1967. It further claims settlements improve national security by
providing strategic depth and creating defensible borders. Thus, Israel
maintains the expansion is lawful, necessary, and rooted in historical
legitimacy.

3) Why is Israel accused of using civilians as shields, and what is Israel’s

justification?

Israel denies using civilians as human shields and states that such actions
are illegal under its own military code and Supreme Court rulings. Israel
argues that allegations arise from urban combat conditions where troops
must enter populated neighborhoods because Hamas embeds fighters and
weapons among civilians. Israel claims the true “human shielding” is done
by Hamas, which positions military assets in civilian environments. Israel
asserts any civilian proximity occurs due to battlefield circumstances, not
deliberate shielding by Israeli forces.

No — not as permanent and final borders.

Israel does not accept the pre-1967 “Green Line” as a final,
secure border. Israel argues these lines were armistice lines from
1949, not internationally agreed borders, and that returning to
them would leave Israel strategically vulnerable, especially
around Jerusalem and central Israel where the country becomes
only 9–15 km wide at its narrowest point.

UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) — What It Says

Passed after the 1967 Six-Day War, Resolution 242 calls for:

1. Withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the

conflict, and

2. The right of every state in the region to live in peace within

secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts
of war.

3. 1) “How does Israel justify self-defense while settlement expansion

contradicts international legal norms?”
4. Israel’s Justification:
5. "Honourable Chair, Israel’s right to self-defense is not contingent upon the status of
disputed territories; it is grounded in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which guarantees
the inherent right of every state to defend its citizens from armed attacks.
6. Regarding settlements, Israel maintains that the territories in question are disputed,
not occupied, since they have no prior recognized sovereign—a legal position
supported by the Mandate for Palestine (1922) and reinforced in the Levy
Commission Report (2012). Negotiations under the Oslo Accords explicitly placed
these areas under joint dispute resolution, not unilateral withdrawal.
7. Therefore, the questions of borders and settlements are matters for final-status
negotiations, not unilateral adjudication. Israel’s right to self-defense exists
independently and cannot be negated by unresolved diplomatic issues."
8.

9. 2) “If Israel claims to minimize civilian harm, why are civilian casualty
statistics consistently high in conflict zones?”
10. Israel’s Justification:
11. "Israel deeply regrets every civilian casualty and is committed to minimizing harm
through advance warnings, humanitarian evacuation corridors, precision-guided
munitions, and real-time surveillance. Israel is one of the only modern militaries
that calls, texts, and distributes leaflets urging civilians to relocate before engaging
targets.
12. However, civilian casualties result from the deliberate tactics of armed groups who
embed weapons, command centers, and rocket launchers inside residential
neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals—a documented violation of International
Humanitarian Law
13. Israel’s conduct is not judged against a zero-casualty ideal, but against whether
feasible precautions were taken. Independent assessments, including by former
NATO commanders, confirm that Israel’s procedures often exceed those required
under international law."
14.

[Link] Closing Line to End Your Response

16. "Israel’s objective has never been to harm civilians, but to protect them—ours and
theirs—while confronting actors who intentionally maximize civilian suffering
for political gain. Peace is possible; but it requires partners who value life, not
those who weaponize it.