Is passive income ethical?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is passive income ethical?". Your opponent's style: Diogenes

I think Isreal is in the right

I need to clarify what you mean. Israel-Palestine is complex, but your statement is dangerously vague. "Right" about what specifically? Military strategy? Historical claims? Current territorial disputes? Settlement policy? Here's the problem with your position: you're asserting a binary conclusion to a multi-layered geopolitical conflict without defining your terms. That's not an argument, it's a bumper sticker. Both sides have legitimate grievances grounded in history, displaced populations, and security concerns. Saying one side is "in the right" ignores Palestinian dispossession, Israeli existential threats, and decades of failed diplomacy. What's your actual claim? That Israel's security justifies all actions? That historical Jewish claims override Palestinian rights? Pick a defensible position and we'll debate it properly.

Yeh I think Israel’s in the write

You're dodging again. "In the right" is meaningless without specifics. Do you mean Israel's 1948 establishment was justified? Its 1967 occupation? Its settlement expansion? Its military responses? Here's your real problem: you can't defend a blanket claim. The moment you specify, you hit contradictions. Israel's security argument collapses when applied to why Palestinians can't have the same security. Historical legitimacy cuts both ways. Proportionality in military response is empirically questionable. Pick one concrete policy and defend it. Otherwise you're just expressing a preference, not making an argument. I'm waiting for something I can actually dismantle.

In the Isreal vs hamas

You're still hiding behind vagueness. Israel versus Hamas isn't a moral binary, it's asymmetrical warfare with competing claims on legitimacy. Here's what you're actually saying: a state military is "in the right" against a designated terrorist organization. But that framing dodges the hard questions. Is civilian casualty ratios justified by security threats? Does occupation and blockade justify resistance? Can you separate Hamas's political governance from its militant wing and still call them purely "wrong"? You need a specific claim: Is Israel's military response proportional? Are its territorial claims valid? Does it have a right to self-defense that overrides Palestinian civilian harm? Name the actual disagreement. This isn't a debate until you do.

Hamas did the crime ok you can’t hold a bay

You're conflating two separate moral questions into one. Yes, Hamas committed atrocities on October 7th. That's fact. But "they attacked first, so anything goes" is a child's logic, not ethics. War crimes don't become justified because your enemy committed them first. Collective punishment of 2.3 million civilians for Hamas's actions violates international law regardless of the provocation. Israel has the right to self-defense, not the right to flatten Gaza. Your argument proves nothing about proportionality, accountability, or whether civilian casualties are acceptable costs. It just says retaliation is deserved. Even that's debatable when the retaliation kills vastly more civilians than the initial attack. What's your actual limit on Israeli response?

What did Isreal do they needed the baby’s and all of them back

Now you're making a real argument: Israel needed to recover hostages, so military action was justified. That's defensible but incomplete. Here's the problem: hostage recovery doesn't require flattening entire neighborhoods. Precision operations exist. Israel could've prioritized extraction without destroying infrastructure, hospitals, and schools. The scale of response vastly exceeded what hostage retrieval demands. Also, many hostages died during the bombardment itself. So did thousands of civilians. You're justifying a strategy that killed some of the people you claim to be saving. Was there genuinely no other way to recover hostages without destroying a territory? That's your actual burden of proof.