I start my first argument by defining the terms ‘war crime’ and ‘genocide’. A war crime is defined as ‘a serious violation of international humanitarian law committed during armed conflict.’ (Legal Information Institute). Genocide is defined as ‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.’
(Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, un.org)
I argue that the State of Israel, currently led by PM Benjamin Netanyahu, has committed multiple severe war crimes and has attempted genocide of the people of Palestine, since the beginning of the Israel-Palestine/Hamas War on the 7th October 2023, after Hamas kidnapped and took hostage 251 innocent Israelis (figure provided by the BBC). Notable war crimes committed by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) include the targetting of schools, hospitals and other public places (mentioned by BBC, UN, Al Jazeera and more), which violates Article 8 of the Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague, defines a long list of war crimes including “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected”. Israel has been using thousands of guided missiles in this war, and it’s been confirmed that they have used these missiles against hospitals in Gaza, for example the Ahli Arab Hospital, which incidentally is the last hospital left in Gaza with any function (and it’s on the way to being destroyed anyway, with multiple departments destroyed) (Source: BBC). These missiles were guided, and so any attack in which they were used on a target is intentional, and thus a war crime.
In addition, we have to mention the recent attack and murder of 14 Red Crescent aid workers, as well as a UN representative, on the 23rd of March 2025. At 5:08am, the convoy of ambulances that had been sent to the area to search for a previously lost ambulance, were ambushed and attacked by IDF troops. Only two survived, one was captured by the Israelis and is currently being held for no apparent reason, the other was held in custody for a short time before being released. The IDF originally claimed that the ambulance convoy was “advancing suspiciously” on Israeli troops “without sirens or headlights” (Source: X, Guardian, Sky News etc), however, a video recording from minutes before the shooting started was found on the phone of one of the deceased ambulance drivers, clearly showing that the ambulances had their headlights and sirens on, and were following the road as they should have been. Furthermore, the IDF also claimed that the convoy didn’t clear a pathway with the Israeli government through what was a “combat zone”. However, statistics and maps released by the IDF themselves show that the ambulance route (which was geolocated by Sky News journalists) was outside the “combat zone” that was shown, meaning that the convoy would’ve had no need to clear a route. Another lie. The IDF ALSO claimed that there were 9 Hamas terrorists amongst the victims, however, they later amended that number to 6. That’s 3 families AT THE VERY LEAST wrongfully accused. Not only that, but the lone free survivor of the attack, alongside the families of the victims, vehemently deny that there were any Hamas terrorists on board, and while the IDF claimed to have killed a Hamas terrorist called Mohammed Amin Shobaki, who the survivor Abed denies all knowledge of, and none of the identified victims have that name, nor are there any other likely victims to be found in the mass grave that the IDF left them in. This whole situation was a web of lies from the IDF, and I ask you: if they are in the right in this war, if they are fighting for the right cause, in the right way, why do they feel the need to lie to the public? Imagine the pain and indignity of losing a loved one, maybe he was your son, or your grandson, or your brother, or your husband, imagine the pain of losing him, finding out that you’ll never see his account appear online on social media, you’ll never hear his voice again, you’ll never know the warmth of his embrace or his love ever again, imagine that, and then imagine the military that had destroyed your home, ruined your people, potentially murdered other relatives of yours claiming that your husband/son/grandson/brother etc was a terrorist, that he was a danger to society, that he was a monster. Imagine that.
The requirements for a just war is one that is for a just cause, declared by the correct authority, the good coming out of it must outweigh the evil committed within it, it must be a last resort (diplomacy should have been attempted first), there must be a reasonable chance of victory, the force used must be proportional, the war must be fought by just means (e.g. innocent civilians shouldn’t be targetted), and internationally agreed conventions (e.g. the Geneva Conventions) must be adhered to. Israel’s war on Palestine hardly fits any of these prerequisites. While the kidnappings of innocent Israeli citizens was cruel and shocking, Israel not only declared war as a first resort, and the logic of destroying an entire country in an attempt to both kill Hamas terrorists, while keeping the Israeli hostages (who are likely with Hamas terrorists) safe seems flawed, just as using a flyswatter to kill a fly trying to eat your grape is flawed, as the same shot that will kill the Hamas terrorist will likely also kill the hostage, as potentially evidenced by only 41 hostages having been released so far. This war is not being fought by just means, innocent people and care workers are being targetted, it is not proportional, Israel is firing far more missiles at Palestine than Hamas is firing back, it’s going to take a hell of a lot of good to outweigh the atrocities being committed in this conflict, and I don’t see that amount of good coming, because it is very difficult to destroy terrorist organisations, NATO tried against the Taliban and failed, a 30 year long war that killed many people and ruined the lives of far more, and Hamas themselves said that they can grow back, and continue fighting. This is not a just war. Israel is not the knight in shining armour. The innocent people of Gaza are not the enemy, despite how they’re treated?
Moving back to genocide, Israel’s war on Gaza has been identified as a genocide by multiple professional organisations such as the UN and Amnesty International, a genocide against the people of Palestine. Israel has targetted multiple schools and hospitals throughout Gaza (Sources: BBC, French Foreign Ministry). This is no accident. This is a concerted effort to rid Palestine of its ability to care for its citizens in a competent way. Without hospitals, Palestinians will die to easily curable illnesses and injuries, the elderly, children, babies, the disabled, mothers. Imagine living in that hellscape, listening to the fruitless cries of desperate babies dying from illnesses/injuries they need not die from, the desperate calls of the elderly, potentially your grandparents, as they grow weak and ill, and eventually dead, with no grave. Imagine having to walk through the ruined streets of Gaza, listening to the wails, and groans, and the final breaths, walking through the ash, and the rubble, and the blood, knowing that these people didn’t have to die, didn’t have to be subjected to such cruel conditions, didn’t have to lose their families, their loved ones. This didn’t have to happen. Israel chose this for the people of Gaza. Israel continues to choose this for the people of Gaza. More than 50,000 Palestinians have died since the conflict began, potentially fifty times the number of Israelis killed (Source: BBC). This is NOT proportional. This is genocide. Israel has also been targetting schools, 87.7% of which are now destroyed, or at least badly damaged (Sources: Save the Children, Guardian). This will ensure that in the future, young people born in Palestine will have no place to learn, no safe haven where they can follow their dreams, no steps on which to climb out of the hole of poverty that they will likely find themselves in. In addition, there will be no way to educate these children about how terrorism is wrong, and so the problem will arise continuously, not to mention the grief and hatred being incited in Gaza against Israel, that will no doubt lead people to join Hamas to get revenge anyway. The good that might come out of this war will NOT outweigh the atrocities committed within it. This is genocide.
I am also tempted to debate that Hamas's attacks on Israel are justified, but that might trigger some people lol
Although how to define unnecessary is a bit tricky. If I define it as "Not needed for Israel's survival", then that might work. If I define it as "Not needed to win the whole war", then that might work as well.
This is a good topic to debate. Might give it a try. Although my topic would probably just be "Israel has commited war crimes", with war crimes being defined as unnecessary harming of civilians. A bit more simple.
The Hamas Charter outlines a broader ideological framework tied to Dar al-Islam (House of Islam), emphasizing that lands under Islamic rule must remain so. Non-Muslims (referred to as “infidels”) within Dar al-Islam are subject to specific conditions under Islamic governance. The Charter extends this idea to Palestine, framing the struggle as both religious and territorial. Its rhetoric—especially in calling for jihad and targeting Jews—has been criticized for anti-Semitism and for conflating political objectives with religious obligations.
I am not criticizing you because you're a student; I am critiquing your phrasing. In your opening, you say, "It's very possible that Hamas has committed its own war crimes." The key phrase—“very likely”—is problematic. Their invasion was a war crime. Taking hostages, especially civilians, is a war crime. Using civilian infrastructure for military purposes is a war crime. Desecrating bodies is a war crime. All these actions occurred within the first 72 hours of the October 7 invasion. Yet, you imply uncertainty with “very likely.” This is where my criticism stems from.
Regarding collateral damage caused by Israel, the question revolves around casualty figures and whether they reflect disproportionate harm. If you’re prepared to discuss this further, please share the data you’re referencing to support claims about unnecessary collateral damage.
Your argument critiques the IDF’s proportionality and collateral damage, but it clearly overlooks key principles of international humanitarian law. Proportionality doesn’t demand zero collateral damage; rather, it assesses whether the anticipated military advantage outweighs the risk to civilians. For example, the ambulance incident you mention—while shocking—is under investigation, with reports suggesting that six Hamas fighters were among the dead. If true, this would highlight the complexities of combat zones, where neutral entities like ambulances can be exploited by militants. While this does not absolve Israel of responsibility, it adds nuance to the discussion.
Warnings to civilians, such as evacuation notices, are not about exonerating the IDF but fulfilling their obligation to minimize harm. These efforts are complicated by Hamas embedding operatives in civilian areas—an act that constitutes a war crime under international law.
Finally, your critique of tone while conceding ignorance weakens your position. Substance dictates debates, and if you have none, or are lacking, then you lose.
I still haven't researched that incident. Working on it. My initial assumption is they are using them to transport important Hamas members and for propaganda purposes once they are hit. It's their typical tactic. They literally use our empathy against us and see that empathy as weakness, they aren't like western powers.
To Clausewitzian,
I understand that perhaps my viewpoint on proportionality is flawed. However, if you’ve been able to provide these arguments from the beginning, surely it might’ve been more prudent to use those, rather than emphasising how mind-blown you are that a student would dare to enter a debate on a topic about which you know more about than them, however, you have done very little to rebut any of my comments about the IDF’s war crimes. I never intended to suggest that Hamas was anywhere but in the wrong in this war, that is not my argument. My argument is that the methods that the IDF has used in order to attack and kill Hamas officials are flawed and cause too much unnecessary collateral damage. An example: one of the excuses the IDF gave for the murder of the Red Crescent aid workers was that some of them were Hamas officials. Remind me, how were they to know this? To attack the Red Crescenft ambulances would be to knowingly risk committing a war crime, as well as the fact that there was very little evidence to suggest that the Hamas terrorist that was apparently killed was even present. It’s true that there is no necessity to warn civilians about an incoming strike, but the argument saying “Oh, they didn’t have to do this at all, they could’ve just given no warning” is severely flawed, as the same logic applies to “It could’ve been worse than assault, I could’ve killed them if I wanted to”. The attempt to make the IDF sound merciful does not hold much water. I understand that I may not know as much about this war as you, and I could likely learn something in a debate with you, however your opening of ad hominem attacks towards me (saying my “rhetoric is clearly lacking”, and that I “should concede the debate immediately”).
In all honesty, it’s true that my comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is incorrect and poor, and I apologise, however, it’s also unfair to suggest that Israel is a victim here. Israel is not defending itself. This war is unnecessary, there was another way. Violence only breeds more violence. Am I wrong in saying that in the killings, deserved or not, of Palestinian civilians, will breed more Hamas terrorists, as the children of the killed seek revenge against Israel? It can be compared to when Hercules fought the Hydra. With every head you cut off, two more grow in its place. Israel could take the example of US after WW2, by helping Palestine rebuild. Time will tell.
One more comment I swear.
I just have to highlight how you yet again misinterpret the definition of proportionality. Proportionality is not 1 Israeli dies, so one Gazan does.
Proportionality is there are 100 people here, not all 100 would die in a strike, however there is no question some might. There are Hamas operatives within the 100. Does striking this target, killing the Hamas fighters (who are committing war crimes by their very presence among civilians), outweigh the potential harm to civilians? This does not mean, does killing 6 hamas for 6 civilians work? As I have said before its not a numbers game. It is, does killing these Hamas war criminals, have justification despite the potential civilian casualties?
I have been on, and therefor seen first hand the opinions and sentiments of US college students, who will say oh grave heavens, look at the 50 thousand killed, yet they make no effort (as you too have not) to understand what proportion are and are not civilians, not a single even remote effort. This is also just what? 2 weeks off of hamas making a revision of thousands of casualties for which the author takes at face value. A PolitiFact article from May states "That’s because over most of the conflict, the figures have come from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, an agency of the region’s Hamas-controlled government". But the author again takes the casualty assessments at face value and as true. When I talk about clear ignorance, this is exactly what I mean. Emotional reaction often replaced informed judgement.
Also I want to address your comparison of 10 jews for every one Nazi killed, and its comparison to Israel in Gaza. First of all there is 0 indication of such a tactic being used by the IDF in Gaza. Also, what is with the anti-Israel movements clear obsession with comparing the IDF or Israel to the actions of Nazi Germany, and on International Holocaust Remembrance day no less.
I should remind you, or enlighten you with the fact that Hajj Amin Al-Husseini was at that time a great friend of Hitler, having been given the "Honorary Aryan" title by him, and even touring Concentration Camps, so comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is not a good look, especially when considering the above.
If I may continue: Comparing the wholesale rounding up of people for their expressed faith, or even the fact that they had at least one Jewish grandparent, and their subsequent execution by the Nazis, (in some cases as retaliation for the murder of a Nazi), is not only inconsistent but frankly quite harmful and morally questionable at best. Indeed it is clear this point was framed in a way as to be a "Gothca" or perhaps to pull some strings, but I find it interesting someone has the nerve to compare collateral damage in a warzone, to the rounding up of men women and children. Interesting indeed.
To put it mildly, it is a cheap and dangerous distortion of history.
Re: Wylted (I cant mention you for some reason, always says "is not active")
Yeah, no. The book which is listed in my profile as "The Art of War" is indeed also the name of a book written by Sun Tzu. The book I am referencing is however by Helmuth v. Moltke. I have only read parts of the book you're referring to, certainly not enough to reference it.
First of all, I'd wager I understand the conflict more than you since I can follow the actual definition of proportionality whilst you (Yes I say again) believe it to be a numbers game.
Proportionality in international law, especially under the Geneva Conventions, isn’t about casualty ratios or percentages of population lost. It's about whether the military advantage anticipated outweighs the expected harm to civilians. Numbers alone don't tell the whole story — context matters: military objectives, who is being targeted, and how operations are conducted.
If Israel can accurately anticipate a strike will lead to a positive military outcome, in comparison to the possible civilian loss, then it cannot be called a war crime. A common misconception to newcomers of this topic, is they believe civilian casualties are by themselves a war crime. That simply is not true. Additionally, proportionality is not entirely a precedent setting , each strike, and its outcome are judged on their own.
Also, you are complaining that they're not giving enough warning, when they literally aren't required to give any warning period. In some cases it is not possible to give warning, say when the target is a high ranking Hamas official, of course warning cannot be expected, but in all cases, the idea that they need to do it earlier is at best, wishful, because frankly, the Palestinians are lucky they're getting a warning at all, as (as I have said) it is unprecedented.
On the charge that I am new to this site, and only engage in ad hominem, first of all, yes I am new to this site, no I am not new to debate, nor am I new to publicly debating this topic.
In other debates, like the one with the self obsessed Rhodes scholar, you can sit and pretend that's what I did from the start, since it suits your point, but that isn't true. After repeated attempts, and repeated rebuttals, yet persistent side stepping, I just called out the author on his clear BS, which is and always will be a fair thing to do in a debate when someone persistently avoids addressing your points.
Also, a list of books doesn't make me deserving of respect anymore than anyone else is deserving, it is merely a list of books I thought might be of interest to others, and so I suggested them.
To Wylted,
It is true that he’s new too, but that doesn’t give him the right to insult others who are just trying to enjoy a debate. I’ve seen on his profile, all of his comments are attacking one of the debaters, calling them a parody, trying to erode their confidence, that’s all of the content in his comments summed up. He implies he knows far more about the war in Israel than me, yet provides no evidence of it, just the apparent fact. He appears to be here to comment unhelpful things (as you said, giving ammo to one side in a debate is considered bad), and even after you told him, he made no effort to even tone it down, as he just continued with his biased critique of me. I’m really looking forward to seeing your side of the argument, I’m just hoping I can see it without the constant questioning and toning down of my confidence done by some civil servant in Austria who thinks a list of books earns him respect (It is a decent list, and those books are great, but actions speak louder than words (defining actions in this scenario as something he chooses to say in a particular moment, while words are things like his predetermined profile description)). Also, how are you getting on with the counter?
I was doing a video and showing a workflow to put this together fast but the girl is home and she is annoting the shit out of me so tomorrow. I really expected to have the place to myself so this is annoying as fuck
Clausewitz you have art of war as written by the wrong author on your profile. I was actually sun tzu
If you want to give citations that may help me nukejelly
He also appears to be new to the site
To Clausewitzian
You say proportionality isn’t a numbers game. What exactly is it then? I agree that the side inflicting more casualties isn’t necessarily fighting out of proportion. However, if this logic is being used against me here in this way, then I assume that Palestine’s population is greater than Israel’s. Oh wait, that’s bullshit. Israel has a population of 9.4 million people, while Palestine has a population of 5.5 million. Let’s change it to a percentages game. Based off of the figures I gave of casualties and populations, Israel has lost 0.01% of its population since the war began. However, Palestine has lost nearly 1% (of a population that was smaller to begin with). That’s like the Nazis killing 10 jews for the murder of one Nazi. Sound proportional now?
While leaflets might be being dropped, it’s likely that these are too late to help much, as the inhabitants of the Ahli Arab hospital were warned only minutes before the attack happened. You tell me if that’s enough to clear out a full hospital with relatively few staff.
In addition, I don’t appreciate your tone. You can see that this is my first debate on this website, I was hoping that I’d be able to engage in at least somewhat civilised debate with other people. I understand that this is a very much emotionally charged topic, especially for you, Clauseswitzian, as your profile suggests. However, how exactly do I know so little about this war? I gave my sources, I gave accurate statistics (as far as I could tell) and yet somehow I know nothing! Please educate me on what I’m missing out on, because right now you sound like some arrogant twat. I’ll be more than willing to learn more about this war. Also, I’m not going to forfeit this debate. Even if I lose, I might learn something.
On Israel/Palestine? Not that I have seen, could you link it perhaps?
I like you. You are fighty. You know, this site has forum too. Most of the debates happen there I think.
To "Wylted"
Yeah, I don't agree. Debates are meant to be fair in structure, there is little to no limitation on outside influence, and in any case, the information I provided is equally accessible to the Pro to rebut (though we see his skills in rhetoric are clearly lacking)
Incredibly weak argument for round 1. First of all, you treat proportionality as a numbers game, in other words, whichever side has more casualties, means the other is not responding proportionally. That's not how that works. (I would provide a complete rebuttal, but I am not the Con so I won't do so at this time).
Additionally, you're lending no weight to Hamas, who have manufactured the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, through the seizure of Aid and its subsequent reselling to Gazan civilians, as well as the real and true fact that hamas continually embeds itself in civilian infrastructure. A party wishing to commit genocide does not take the unprecedented step of dropping leaflets almost every time it conducts an airstrike. Like this argument is so poor, I am honestly mind blown pro would even think to enter this debate, since they clearly know so little about the conflict, its history, and complex components. Ill leave the rest for the con, but jesus mary and joseph, Pro should concede the rest of the debate.
I am just having fun with you. Old habits. Enjoy.
Funny how someone with a chicken jockey pfp thinks they have ground to stand on to call me a “brain-dead tiktok zoomer”. I’m sorry if I prefer the UN and Amnesty International, amongst other sources to other media sources, although in all fairness I can call you out for the same things, what are your sources, how are they more credible than the UN? I’m facing this with an open mind, apologies if I sound like I’m challenging your inflated ego, because you see all of the ‘narratives’ right? I acknowledge I probably don’t know everything about this war but I doubt it would be a ridiculous claim to suggest that perhaps you don’t either? I’m not ‘easily persuaded’ I supported Israel until I looked more closely into what was happening, and even then Hamas is still in the wrong as well. Of course, I will be happy to reconsider my stance if you give me sufficient reason to, but calling me a “literal brain-dead Tik tok zoomer” isn’t a good start.
It's considered bad for to give one side ammo in a debate.
Not necessary but thank you. I only meant to give you some ammo to use in the debate, and judging by your win ratio, and clear understanding of the conflict, you have got it well in hand. I'll be back for the voting. Good luck.
If you would prefer I can forfeit and you can take this debate.
I'm eager to see your responses, and arguments.
The assertion that Israel's war against Gaza is unjust and genocidal fails under scrutiny for three primary reasons: the legal basis for self-defense, the nature of Hamas’ military tactics, and the absence of genocidal intent or actions by Israel under international definitions.
Also, I present the moral conundrum which makes anti-Israeli's squirm:
If Israel is committing genocide, by withholding aid, or via aerial bombardment of areas hijacked by hamas death-cultists, or because through such bombardments civilians have died, then I'm afraid you need to call up your grandpa (Assuming you're from a country which fought in the second world war) and tell them they committed acts of genocide against the Germans. And if they didn't partake in any aerial campaign, they at least fought on a side which did. If that's something you're unwilling to admit, then you need to abandon your clearly flawed logic.
What should be argued, is that there needs to be a reorganization of international law which protects human life, but doesn't protect those who fight using asymmetrical warfare tactics like Hamas. Hamas knows there are idiots in the West who will scream and shout about genocide, genocide, genocide, and it knows that it can utilize civilian infrastructure, which it sees as a win-win situation. Either 1. Israel doesn't bomb civilian areas it is using and therefor its fighters don't die, or 2. its fighters die, but also civilians, so now it can send out a memo to Al Jazeera, or Al-Arabiya and before you know it, folks like NukeJelly are screaming Genocide, Genocide, hurting Israel's reputation further. Unfortunately, the war requires a realist approach, which will result in civilian casualties. The alternative is a war, and a world, in which terrorist organizations dictate the rules, right the outrage messages, and through time, eventually succeed because westerners simply don't have the stomach for realism.
NukeJelly supports what can be summed up as, weak warfare. It wasn't a regard for civilian or military infrastructure which won the war. Even though Germany at the very least didn't really utilize civilian structures the way Hamas does. No, the war was won because the German people lost the stomach for a conflict they were outmatched in, and neither the German army nor its people were offered any quarter. That's what won world war 2. NukeJelly, the second world war would've been much longer but for the nuclear weapons. I'm not arguing Israel should use its weapons in Dimona, however, overwhelming force will prevent Hamas from attacking again, not lying down and taking their rocket attacks. If that isn't allowed, then it will only be a matter of time until Hamas wins, because the Israeli people will lose their stomach, whilst the Palestinians (Who admit this), can wait years or generations because life is not just on this earth, but for all time, so who really cares about 76 years. That is who Israel is fighting, people who think in terms of centuries, not days. Kill the snake (Hamas) now, using realistic realist tactics, or wait another decade or two until Hamas gains the legitimacy and can fight Israel with better weapons, better numbers, and nation states behind them. Israel cannot, nor can it be expected to, take that, or wait for it.
"what's certain is that Israeli war crimes have been more frequent, more obvious and more brutal. Feel free to join, can't wait to debate!"
What's obvious is their propaganda has been more frequent allowing literal brain dead tik Tok zoomers to be easily persuaded.
I like how the term genocide was being used by Hamas prior to any defensive retaliatory actions, almost like they started the bullshit script too soon
I wonder what happened on October 7th that would make Israel want to attack Hamas. I guess it will always be a mystery