Group 2 :

Syadzilia Aluv Mawsally (2201422046)

Duratun Nasekhah (2201422053)
Keisha Lingga Kusumadewi (2201422067)
Rusydina Khumaida (2201422078)
Muhammad Danish Ridwan Abiyyu (2201422085)

1. Identify the arguments/ theses of the texts.

1) The United States condemns Hamas's barbaric terrorist attack against Israel.
2) The United States has the right, and indeed the imperative, to defend
themselves against terrorism.
3) The United States, United Nations and particularly the Council, has a crucial
role to play in addressing this crisis.
4) We must affirm the right of any nation to defend itself and to prevent such
horror from repeating itself.
5) As this council and the UN General Assembly have repeatedly affirmed, all
acts of terrorism are unlawful and unjustifiable.
6) We all agree on the vital need to protect civilians.
7) It means Israel must take all possible precautions to avoid harm to civilians.
8) A civilian is a civilian is a civilian, no matter his or her nationality, ethnicity,
age, gender, faith.
9) The United States has committed an additional $100 million in humanitarian
assistance to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
10) The United States does not seek conflict with Iran. United States does not
want this war to widen.
11) A broader conflict would be devastating, not only for Palestinians and Israelis,
but for people across the region and, indeed, around the world.
12) Iran supports the attack and elimination of the Israeli state.
13) The United States considers Iran to be the source of the conflict.
14) Other countries do not have the same stance as America in opposing Iran, so
they must be responsible.
15) Making the area into two countries and two nations is the only way to resolve
the conflict.
16) America is the only country that has a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.
17) Hamas just wants bad things to happen.
2. Are the arguments valid and sound?
1) The argument is valid but the soundness of the argument couldn't be proven as
there are many source of news as The White House has discussed military
options if Iran-backed Hezbollah attacks Israel from its base in Lebanon,
Axios' Barak Ravid reports.
2) The argument is valid because the conclusion follows from the given premise
based on what Secretary Blinken announce.
 3) The argument is valid because the conclusion follows logically from the given
premise as United Nations incorporating feedback from council members and
partners in the region.
4) The argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the given
premise as there are many events that slaughtered life of people through the
war between Israel and Palestine.
5) The argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the given
premise as there are many examples from news of terorism attacks.
6) The argument reflects a general opinion rather than a reasoned argument. But
through our human nuance, people shouldn't be killing other people.
7) This argument is valid because Israel must provide preventive measures
against civilians.
8) This argument is valid because a civilian is still a civilian regardless of
nationality, etc.
9) This argument is valid because the president said the United States would
provide assistance to the Palestinian people.
10) This argument is valid because the United States does not want conflict with
Iran.
11) This argument is valid because a wider conflict will have negative impacts on
the entire region, not just Palestine and Israel.
12) The argument is invalid because, even though Iran supports Hamas, Hamas
and other proxies is fully responsible for decision-making.
13) The argument is invalid because Iran does not take part in the decisions taken
by its proxies.
14) The argument is invalid because not telling Iran to stop does not mean
supporting it and being responsible.
15) This argument is valid because then there will be political rules that can be
used.
16) This argument is not valid because big countries are not just America, and
other council members also have solutions.
17) This argument is valid because Hamas kills civilians.
3. Are the arguments inductively or deductively constructed?
1) The United States condemns Hamas's barbaric terrorist attack against Israel.
(Deductive)
2) The United States has the right, and indeed the imperative, to defend
themselves against terrorism. (Deductive)
3) The United States, United Nations and particularly the Council, has a crucial
role to play in addressing this crisis. (Deductive)
4) We must affirm the right of any nation to defend itself and to prevent such
horror from repeating itself. (Inductive)
5) As this council and the UN General Assembly have repeatedly affirmed, all
acts of terrorism are unlawful and unjustifiable. (Deductive)
6) We all agree on the vital need to protect civilians. (Deductive)
7) It means Israel must take all possible precautions to avoid harm to civilians.
(Deductive)
 8) A civilian is a civilian is a civilian, no matter his or her nationality, ethnicity,
age, gender, faith. (Inductive)
9) The United States has committed an additional $100 million in humanitarian
assistance to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. (Deductive)
10) The United States does not seek conflict with Iran. United States does not
want this war to widen. (Deductive)
11) A broader conflict would be devastating, not only for Palestinians and Israelis,
but for people across the region and, indeed, around the world. (Inductive)
12) Iran supports the attack and elimination of the Israeli state. (Inductive)
13) The United States considers Iran to be the source of the conflict. (Deductive)
14) Other countries do not have the same stance as America in opposing Iran, so
they must be responsible. (Inductive)
15) Making the area into two countries and two nations is the only way to resolve
the conflict. (Deductive)
16) America is the only country that has a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. (Deductive)
17) Hamas just wants bad things to happen. (Inductive)
4. Identify the unstated assumptions.
1) Hamas is a terrorist organization and their attack is considered as terorism by
the United States.
2) Every nation has the right to defend their country from terrorism.
3) The United States and the United Nations Council have major global roles to
address and solve the matter.
4) Nations have the right to defend themselves against threats, and it is a
responsibility to prevent similar traumatic events from occurring in the future.
5) International agreement on the moral and legal stance against terrorism.
6) Nations have the right to defend themselves against threats, and it is a
responsibility to prevent similar traumatic events from occurring in the future.
7) Israel has an obligation or responsibility to protect civilians during conflicts.
8) All civilians have the same right to protection regardless of nationality, age,
gender or religion.
9) A. The United States has the financial capacity to allocate an additional $100
million for humanitarian assistance.
B. There is an urgent and significant need for humanitarian assistance in the
Gaza and West Bank regions.
10) The United States expressed that it had no intention of seeking conflict.
11) The impact of the conflict will not only affect Palestinians and Israelis, but
also people throughout the region.
12) Iran is hostile to America and its groups.
13) Iran is the cause of the spread of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
14) Other countries support the conflict's spread.
15) Israel and Palestine are currently fighting over land.
16) Other countries do not have a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
17) Hamas is simply an evil terrorist organization.
5. Can you accept the assumptions? Why?
There are quite a lot of assumptions that we can accept because they are in
accordance with existing conditions, such as Hamas, which is massacring civilians, as
well as all civilians who we are obliged to protect. However, there are assumptions that
we cannot accept, such as Iran's involvement in the Israeli attack, where Iran does not
take part in the decisions made by each proxy, one of which is Hamas, or other countries
that are considered to support the Israeli attack if they do not warn Iran. Of course, this
is the case. This is not necessarily true; there could be other reasons why these countries
cannot immediately warn Iran.
6. Identify the evidence to support the arguments.
1) Specific incidents mentioned: babies riddled with bullets, young people hunted
down and gunned down, families burned alive, parents executed in front of
their children, children executed in front of their parents, and hostages taken in
Gaza.
2) Mention of the imperative of states to defend themselves against terrorism,
emphasizing the need for self-defense in the face of such attacks
3) The United States has put forward a resolution outlining practical steps that can
be taken to address the crisis, building on elements from a previous proposal by
Brazil and incorporating feedback from council members and partners in the
region.
4) The text emphasizes the right of any nation to defend itself and prevent such
horrors, highlighting that no nation would tolerate the slaughter of its people.
5) The text provides examples of terrorist organizations and places (ISIS, Boko
Haram, Nairobi, Bali, etc.) to emphasize the issue
6) Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people, and Palestinian civilians are
not to blame for the carnage committed by Hamas. Palestinian civilians must be
protected.
7) The fact that the protection of civilians is an internationally recognized principle
in armed conflict. Therefore, preventive measures and protection of civilians
are a must.
8) Principles of International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions.
These principles specifically emphasize equal protection for all civilians in
armed conflict, regardless of their background.
9) Concrete action taken by the United States, namely a commitment to provide
significant amounts of humanitarian assistance. This humanitarian assistance is
concrete evidence of the United States' good intentions to help Palestinians who
may need assistance in conflict situations.
10) An official policy statement from the United States government confirming that
it has no intention of starting a conflict or war with Iran. This is a statement that
underscores the intent for peace and the desire to prevent further escalation in
the conflict.
11) A broad understanding of the potential adverse impacts that could occur in
armed conflicts involving wider regions and countries. Evidence of this can be
found in the history of armed conflicts in various parts of the world, which often
result in mass suffering.
 12) Iran has supported Hamas, Hizballah, the Houthis, and other groups that
continue to carry out attacks on Israel. Iranian leaders have routinely threatened
to wipe Israel off the map. Iran’s proxies have repeatedly attacked U.S.
personnel in Iraq and Syria.
13) If you, like the United States, want to prevent this conflict from spreading, tell
Iran, tell its proxies do not open another front against Israel in this conflict; do
not attack Israel’s partners.
14) Make clear that if Iran or its proxies widen this conflict and put more civilians
at risk, you – you – will hold them accountable.
15) The only road to lasting peace and security in the region, the only way to break
out of this horrific cycle of violence, is through two states for two peoples.
16) Our message today is this: Help us build that solution. Help us prevent the
spread of war that will make two states and broader peace and security in the
region even harder to achieve.
17) One is the path offered by Hamas. We know where it leads: death, destruction,
suffering, darkness.
7. Evaluate the evidence.
There is quite a lot of evidence presented in the text that is proven to be true,
but there is also evidence that is not proven to be true, such as Iran supporting the attack
on Israel or countries that must be responsible if they do not order Iran to stop.
8. Do the authors of the texts show leniency to a certain side or issue?
The text critically opposes Hamas' actions in the attacks, but on the other hand,
it also discusses the need to protect Palestinian civilians, and suggests a balanced
approach to resolving the war between the states. Even though it looks like it is
balanced, the text mentions Israel more often than Palestine, making it look more
towards the Israel side.
9. Are there any logical fallacy in the text?
Yes, there is a logical fallacy in the argument in the text, namely in the form of
an appeal to authority, because it uses President Biden's authority, such as "As President
Biden has made..." or "As President Biden has underscored..." which is a logical fallacy
in an appeal to authority.
10. What is your opinion of the texts based on the argument development in the text?
The text highlights the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian bloodbath never ending
war. Focused on the urgency of civilian protection and highly needs a wiser political
solution from United Nations. However, there are many sides of the speech that are
trying to be neutral as it approaches United Nations major roles and President Biden's
mandate to express their support on civilian protection.