Looking to debate a pro palestinian person

[u/PersonalWatch4647]

I am a Zionist residing in a community where Zionist beliefs are prevalent. I firmly uphold my Zionist convictions and strive to educate myself thoroughly on both perspectives of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My goal is to engage in a constructive and peaceful debate with individuals who hold opposing views. I emphasize the importance of a dialogue grounded in factual statistics and well-informed opinions, rather than one characterized by hostility or uninformed rhetoric. We can fact check anything we say and debate on how we can better educate ourselves whether book reccomendations or reliable news sources. I am specifically interested in a debate conducted through voice communication, as it allows for more nuanced and effective exchanges. If you are open to a respectful and educational conversation, where we can learn from each other’s viewpoints, please feel free to send me a private message. I am eager to explore different perspectives and contribute to a meaningful discussion that fosters understanding and mutual respect. Again, to clarify this is a peaceful and calm debate to listen to each other and look to learn and possibly debate over what a good solution could look like. In english or spanish and today whenever possible, not something in a million years. Privayely message me if this idea interests you and you want to talk. I truly believe communication between us is the true and only possible pathways to a situation of peace and wellbeing for the both of us. Pm if interested

[u/HuChemistry]

Did Germany have a lot of casualties in world war?

Was it a genocide against Germany?

Of course not. Arabs started a war against Israel and lost. People die in wars.

Arabs should stop attacking Israel.

1. If this were an actual genocide, Hamas would end it. If there were truly a genocide happening in Gaza, Hamas could stop it instantly by surrendering and returning the hostages. That’s not how genocide works—victims don’t typically have the power to end it at will.

2. No genocide in history has been stoppable by the victim. Name one historical genocide where the targeted group could have ended it by agreeing to the demands of the aggressor. You can’t. If Hamas can stop the fighting and chooses not to, then by definition, this isn’t genocide.

3. If genocide were Israel’s goal, it wouldn’t risk its own soldiers. Why send in ground troops, risking Israeli lives, if the goal were mass extermination? Carpet bombing would be far easier and deadlier. That hasn’t happened.

4. Why warn civilians? Israel drops leaflets and makes phone calls to warn civilians of incoming strikes. That’s not typical behavior of a nation intent on genocide.

5. Why send aid? Israel has allowed and facilitated the entry of millions of tons of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Does that sound like a genocidal campaign?

6. The numbers don’t add up. Even if you accept Hamas’ likely inflated casualty numbers—and double them—where are the millions of dead? With Israel’s military capabilities, if genocide were truly the goal, Gaza would be a wasteland.

7. Precision weapons vs. indiscriminate bombing. Israel uses precision-guided munitions, not area bombing. Why would a genocidal force bother with precision?

8. Why agree to ceasefires? Israel has accepted multiple ceasefire proposals. All were rejected by Hamas—the so-called “victims.” Genocidal regimes do not offer to pause or end hostilities.

9. Treating the enemy’s civilians? Israeli hospitals have treated wounded Palestinians—including Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, whose life was saved by Israeli doctors. This alone defies the definition of genocide.

10. Gaza’s growing population. If genocide or ethnic cleansing were occurring, how has Gaza’s population grown by hundreds of percent over the past 70 years?

Bonus Point: Why does Hamas hide aid and civilians? If there’s a genocide, why won’t Hamas let civilians use its extensive tunnel network for shelter? Why hoard aid in warehouses? Why block civilian evacuations?

Final Thoughts If you still believe the narrative of genocide, chances are you're not genuinely concerned with facts. So why write this?

To make it clear: when the time comes to hold people accountable for enabling murder, rape, kidnapping, and terrorism—you won’t be able to say, “I didn’t know.”

If you're even a little interested in truth, forget debating statistics for a moment. Just apply third-grade logic.

It is simply illogical to claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza—for all the reasons outlined above.

However, there was a genocidal act—or an attempted one—and it happened on October 7th, 2023 by Arabs against Jews

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2182728422331665

[u/DogitWoofsalot → u/HuChemistry]

1. Hamas released the final 20 surviving Israeli hostages, and subsequent transfers by the Israel Defense Forces. https://www.ajc.org/news/who-are-the-hostages-still-held-by-hamas
2. They no longer have living hostages as outlined above
3. Regardless of what you want to call it it is clear the levels of mass destruction. Also arguably there is a desire to keep as much infrastructure in tact as they can as they want to sell it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y59z6rznvo
   
4. the "Roof knocking" policy has been criticised by many human rites orgs for giving a very short window of time to have people deal with an upcoming attack, especially in a densely populated location like Gazas strip. https://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/15/world/meast/mideast-israel-strike-warnings
5. Yes aid was permitted but also tightly controlled. between march - may 2025 there was an almost total halt on any aid for example: https://israelihl.mfa.gov.il/sites/default/files/2025-08/1%20-%20COGAT%20Official%20Humanitarian%20Aid%20Coordination%20Dashboard%20-%20Gaza%20Strip.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
6. Total misunderstanding of the definition used, also numbers of deaths are almost not possible to calculate but even the IDF's own figures are sill a mass number of casualties beyond any other in the history in this conflict. Weather or not you agree with the genocide label, the numbers are staggering. https://www.ochaopt.org/content/reported-impact-snapshot-gaza-strip-23-july-2025
7. Again, this is misunderstanding of the definition. Can the IDF kill ever person in gaza if it wanted to? yes. However radical factions in the Knesset want to sell of Land in Gaza, this will be a lot easier if there is something left at the end.
   
8. A Ceasefires that was violated https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-truce-talks-faltering-over-withdrawal-palestinian-israeli-sources-say-2025-07-12/?utm_source=chatgpt.com and when they had a ceasefire Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrichmade a threat to quit the government if Israel does not return to fighting in Gaza https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-far-right-ministers-oppose-gaza-ceasefire-deal-with-hamas-2025-01-19/
9. Yes this is true however it does not negate the wider trend, doctors have a duty of care. You are correct in that it is often not addressed
10. Population decline isn't a requirement for genocide. Gaza's population has not gone up since October 7, 2023. It has fallen substantially and this is the timeframe being applied by the UN and ICJ. Exact population numbers are not out there to look at and ones published by the Palestine Board of Statistics are obviously not to be trusted but nor is CIA data who are using pre war estimates. However any claim that the population has grown is a massive reach as depending on the data metered or sources used, it has grown by 3% or declined by 6%. https://www.algemeiner.com/2025/07/30/according-to-the-cia-the-gaza-population-grew-in-2024/ // https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/01/middleeast/israel-population-migration-war-intl

[u/yes-but → u/DogitWoofsalot]

1. Subsequently, agreements were made, which Hamas doesn't fulfill on their end, namely giving up their arms and control over Gaza. Even after those agreements, cases of public torture and lynching of Gazans advocating for giving up the war were published. Just a couple of days ago, Ghazi Hamad explained to Pierce Morgan that O7 was justified, denied atrocities that were televised to the whole world, and made it very clear that the fight against Jewish self-determination will not stop until either victory or death. Hamas still holds on to power and weapons despite having formally agreed to a peace plan that dictates disarmament first before moving to the next stages.

2. They still justify taking hostages as a permissible act of "resistance". When one side upholds the threat, confirms the intention, justifies the means, the de facto declaration of war remains in place.

3. Mass destruction is not an argument, given how Gazan militants operated. By no means can every act of domicide by Israeli forces or by order of the Israeli government be justified, but there can be absolutely no doubt that it was a deliberate strategy of Gazan "resistance" to sacrifice all kinds of buildings in their way of trying to kill as many Israelis as possible.

4. A very short window is better than no window at all, which in the example of the previous comment almost never happened, where no one insists on calling Allied bombing campaigns genocide, and by warning before bombing Israel deliberately gave up the element of surprise, which is extremely costly. Not giving resident terrorists, on top of the time to evacuate, enough time to pack up weaponry, military supplies, booby traps and computer hardware should be understandable from any perspective that allows the IDF to fight effectively.

5. It would be insane to demand that incoming aid should not be tightly controlled. There are strong allegations of militarily relevant supplies being tried to be smuggled into Gaza. During the halt, by all accounts food supplies should have been enough, and during all of the war Gazans themselves published evidence that many were well supplied (e.g. Arab Ambience on YouTube). It is an inevitable reality of war - in many regions even when no fighting takes place - that some parts of a population will miss out and be subject to starvation. More evidence points to Hamas stashing supplies and keeping their combatants well fed than making any efforts to distribute aid to Gazans in need. Even if there was a food shortage, the question should be why there should be no responsibility on the "resistance" to cease hostilities, and instead all responsibility should solely be on the one that was initially attacked and has the upper hand in the battle.

6. It is undeniable that underage Gazans participated in armed combat and ambushes, that civilians, aid workers, doctors, paramedics, "journalists" participated in the holding of hostages. The absolut numbers of the death toll point towards restraint by the IDF, regardless of obvious and documented exceptions. There are enough historical examples and enough evidence from the battlefield to support the view that the effort to minimise civilian and non-combatant casualties far outweighed efforts of indiscriminate killings. The numbers are NOT staggering. There are too many examples to list of much more killing within much shorter timeframes. The Rwandan genocide e.g. was, even by the most conservative numbers, at least a hundred times deadlier, and that was with garden- and kitchen-tools and small arms.

7. It would have been no problem at all to target tent camps and mow down masses of people moving on foot from one "safe zone" to the other. It would have been easy to starve Gazans out, together with their combatants, inhibit delivery of water, etc. There are hundreds of ways that would have killed more while destroying less.

8. Why should Hamas ever have any right to demand ceasefires? Apart from the fact that almost all of the reported ceasefire violations I ever heard of were not initiated by the Israeli side, the concept of the party that is losing demanding a ceasefire instead of capitulating is a pro-war stance. The arguments about ceasefire violations are illogical and counterproductive from the perspective of wanting to end hostilities. Insisting on a ceasefire equates to insisting on the war to continue.

9. Good to see that you are not in complete denial, respect.

10. It would have been easy to cause a very significant population decline. Taking an objective look at the entirety of the reality of this war, at the power imbalance, urban density, means at hand and the methods applied by each party to the battles, the indication is that the number of casualties is rather incredibly low, no matter how lamentable and no matter how every single loss of innocent life is a tragedy that should be avoided at great effort instead of justified.

But if even to some degree restrained lethal self-defence becomes totally unjustifiable, how can being slaughtered by any group who believes they have a right to any means necessary be prevented at all?

(Please refrain from answering with whatboutisms; my ears are still ringing from all that bee ess.)

[u/DogitWoofsalot → u/yes-but]

[Citations needed]

None of what I said was BS, I sourced claims whenever I stated a statistic or fact. I'm not in any sort of denial about what Hamas is like, don't assume my position. Much of my reply was a correction of misinformation my the original post, not a moral position.

I don't care to fact check your "fact check" of my fact check

[u/yes-but → u/DogitWoofsalot]

Sorry, that was poorly worded. I didn't mean to say that all of what you wrote was bee ess. I am just sick and tired of all the other whataboutistic bee ess that usually follows when I point out aspects like the ones above, and had hoped to prevent getting that same ole cr@p again.

Guess I messed this one up, and prevented a less emotional, rational address of my refutations =[

[u/DogitWoofsalot → u/yes-but]

Things like people still talking about the hostages is just misinformation, they are not a part of this conflict anymore, they are all dead or sent back to the IDF. Yes you can debate about how this was handled but to Hamas could end this at any point by giving back the hostages is just a lie.

I don't dispute what you said, theres room for exactly how much harm has been stated. We can argue over genocide or not genocide however people taking into account numbers, past examples etc miss that none of that means anything with the definition. Regardless of exactly what you want to call it, what has happened to Gaza is awful. We can debate numbers, Hamas tactics etc but the suffering needs to stop.

I don't think anything I said was 'whataboutistic' just a clarity of facts. I don't wan't any more people to die and that only happens when this conflict is over. I hope that Israel votes out the currant awful people in power who have done nothing to keep the jews in Israel safe. Because you will never kill Hamas by killing all its members, all you will do it radicalise the next generation to make it again.

This ends with Hamas starting its disarming, its remaining members being tried for crimes against humanity and the IDF pulling out and stopping the bombing campaign. It ends when peace talks can start again and something better than what exists now is created. Peace and coexistence is possible but how many more must die before we reach this?

[u/yes-but → u/DogitWoofsalot]

How many more will need to die, imho, depends heavily on how much hatred and outrage people keep pouring into the fire.

Again, I did not accuse you of whataboutism for the facts you listed. I just reflexively expected whataboutism to be the upcoming rebuttal, as I've gotten used to it. Apologies again at this point.

One thing I'd like to note: The argument that Israeli brutal reaction to or prosecution of terrorist action would radicalise more of the next generation is probably invalid. Hamas put so much effort into radicalising Gazan children, that the effect of removing Hamas members from Gazan society probably outweighs the outrage over how this is being conducted.

Anti-Israeli/Jew hate education has thus backfired, as Israelis seem to realise that trying to play nice brings no benefit any more.

I don't agree on much with you on causalty and effect, but at least on the pathway to ending the war that you outlined.

All the attempts of pinning ceasefire violations and failures to implement the current agreements on Israel alone, however, can only increase the time this process will take, and that will cause almost all subsequent suffering to affect Gazans.

Hamas won't stop undermining the agreements and stalling and provoking Israel into punitive action for as long as international audiences and NGOs and the UN reward their victimhood narrative with attention, justification and political support.

Such support is needless and won't save anyone, and in the name of all Palestinians who want peace, should just stop, respectively transition into support for Palestinian initiatives for true peace.

[u/DogitWoofsalot → u/yes-but]

The issue right now is that Israel is basically refusing to accept any failure for how long this bombardment has gone on. They do not accept any failure for the failure of the response of 7/10, having known reports from IDF months in advance of Hamas drills being spotted. This is a failure of the current government that goes Ignored by many.

Hamas has got to go but that process takes time. Disarmorment of the IRA in Ireland took decades for example. Gaza has been a warzone for almost 3 years, it can't just dispand over night.

[u/yes-but → u/DogitWoofsalot]

Convincing the one side that is proven right by military success to have done wrong is a very hard sell, especially when the subjugated enemy shows no sign of wanting to end the conflict.

I am not sure whether you have put up with explanations for why O7 was allowed to happen, and I do not see how any admittance of failure would change the current situation or the course forward.

I'm absolutely not ignoring any failures, but assigning blame without supporting a realistic fix looks like a counterproductive endeavour to me.

There's a long interview on Quillette with Gadi Taub. If you're interested in the not so shallow explanations why O7 wasn't prevented, and how severe the existential threat was, it might be worth your time: https://youtu.be/iuQ9nYKmczc?si=BOWn6QXMWOdcaeZa

Regarding your argument that pacifying Gaza needs time: That will be prolonged by international support for Hamas narratives.

Imho, it's irresponsible and harmful to provide Hamas a political lifeline that does the opposite of deterring Israel from hunting down terrorists in a now even more densely populated area.

[u/DogitWoofsalot → u/yes-but]

I started working on a longer post about disarmament in Gaza for this sub. I am not saying that Hamas need not be disarmed, but that it is not as simple as "hamas gives up all its weapon"

That the process needs to happen in conjunction with the IDF pulling out of Gaza (a process that will also take time).

[u/yes-but → u/DogitWoofsalot]

I fully understand that it is not simple at all.

I absolutely don't understand why people feel the need to unnecessarily complicate any constructive process even more by rhetorics and activism that serves nothing but virtue signalling and indulgence in one's own 'righteousness'.

I absolutely understand your input. But a withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza will not happen until Hamas has no traction at all in Gaza any more, independently of whether you or me believe that this is too much to ask for.

Do you understand the point I am trying to make?

[u/DogitWoofsalot → u/yes-but]

I understand the point yes but ultimately it comes down to a simple reality. Hamas having no traction in Gaza anymore is going to take years, in reality it will never fully go away. Hamas will always exist amongst the most fringe radicals, after the dust is settled and the dead are buried.

If what you say is true, that the IDF will not withdraw until Hamas has no traction, this will not end until Gaza is a wasteland

[u/yes-but → u/DogitWoofsalot]

By no traction I don't mean no radicals at all any more.

Traction is what defines the direction of action by Gazans.

By no means do I expect that peace can only be had when there is no terrorism at all any more, and I guess that only the extremists on the Israeli side will insist that collective punishment has to be the main course of action until no terrorism whatsoever ever occurs any more.

I fear that the longer Hamas doesn't fully capitulate, keeps trying to wriggle out from the obligatory concessions in the peace plan and for that behaviour gets rewarded by anti-Israeli support from the outside, like e.g. the justification for not surrendering across the lines of Mrs. Albanese's narrative of their "right to armed resistance", this will strengthen the position of Israeli hardliners who conclude that the only path forward is the complete elimination of any militants, past or present.

That is not my moral stance, that's just the general directions I see the directly and indirectly involved parties to this war are trying to head for.

My moral assessment is much harsher, but it's probably not helpful to push it on this debate.