Debating Israel-Palestine: The flawed rhetoric of the Israeli government’s defenders

I recently debated the actions of the Israeli government in Palestine with a friend, and it left me more entrenched in my position than ever.

The discussion reminded me of the continued British support for Netanyahu’s government and the flawed arguments used to defend it. Hoping to gain something from this debate, beyond a slight headache, I have quoted a few key arguments of my Netanyahu-defending counterpart, alongside my responses, with the hope of highlighting the faults in his reasoning and advocating for the Palestinian cause. Although perhaps my ultimate hope is that my friend will read this and be similarly won over, but that may be wishful thinking.

To avoid creating a straw man that I can smugly take down, all arguments have been lifted from his messages, and he has confirmed that they are an accurate characterisation of his views. While many of these arguments stem from a genuine fear for Israel’s security after October 7, I would argue they ultimately collapse under scrutiny.

Equating Hamas with Palestine

Our argument began after said friend proclaimed a love for the Israeli government. Given the current reports of extensive war crimes and alleged genocide in Gaza, I asked him to clarify his position.

After he doubled down, I brought up the Israeli government’s mass-killing of civilians (including an estimated 18,000 children), its alleged targeted murder of journalists, who are being killed on an unprecedented level, and its blockade of aid, causing mass starvation in Gaza.

This common rhetorical move unsubtly equates Palestine with Hamas, which is flawed because many Palestinians are not Hamas supporters, and Hamas does not equal ‘Palestine’

He responded with a common, diversionary defence of the IDF’s (Israel Defense Forces) alleged war crimes, asking whether I had any sympathy for those civilians “dying at the hands of Palestine.” Moreover, he noted that ‘Palestine’ was killing women and children, while also blocking aid and killing journalists.

This common rhetorical move unsubtly equates Palestine with Hamas, which is flawed because many Palestinians are not Hamas supporters, and Hamas does not equal ‘Palestine’. Additionally, this commits the straw man fallacy by assuming I’m defending Hamas, while also falsely equivocating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government as equally relevant here (despite my specific challenge centring on the Israeli government’s actions). This is also a classic example of ‘whataboutism’, as he shifts the focus of the blame onto Hamas, despite my condemnation of their crimes.

I then clarified my sympathy for the civilians dying at the hands of Hamas, condemning the group for its wrongdoing and highlighting his failure to criticise the Israeli government for its crimes against civilians.

‘A proportionate response’

In another common argument, my counterpart noted there could never be such a thing as a proportionate response, beyond the Israeli government committing an ‘October 7’ on Palestine.

Here, he incorrectly defines a proportional response as ‘doing the same thing back’, when, under international law, it is instead defined as using sufficient force to secure military objectives without undue or excessive harm to civilians.

His argument misrepresents proportionality and attempts to distract from the Israeli government’s high infliction of civilian casualties by shifting the focus onto Hamas. It also implies a false dichotomy, suggesting that there were only two options after October 7: either to recreate it in reverse or to continue as the Israeli government has now. This overlooks alternative approaches in accordance with international law, while subtly portraying the Israeli government’s methods as the most reasonable choice. Finally, this extreme framing makes proportionality itself seem indefensible.

The argument from moral paternalism

From here, he progressed onto another common argument, saying he supported the Israeli government “winning as quickly as possible as they are the right country to run the area”, because they “share our values”. Adding that the Israeli government should win, because they are a democratic country with “women’s suffrage, gay rights, and equality”.

Firstly, I would query as to why ‘our values’ get to be the standard bearer of who should control this region, rather than the people who were born there. I would also note that Palestine hasn’t exactly been given the breathing room to implement reform, as many are preoccupied simply with survival. Moreover, historically, if you applied the maxim of eliminating all those who were homophobic or sexist to Britain, there wouldn’t be many people left today. I would challenge the hypocrisy of being superior about ‘our values’, given our own recently, and unconvincingly, addressed social problems. It is also important to note that conservative social views do not justify the death penalty, especially when it is inflicted indiscriminately and without trial.

It is difficult to talk up the Israeli government’s record on social rights, given that it has consistently deprived Palestinians of human rights

Ultimately, the situation in Gaza is a matter of human rights, as Palestinians of all creeds are being killed by Israeli bombs. While it is true that Israel has a better record of LGBTQIA+ and women’s rights than Hamas-controlled Gaza, this does not excuse their mass killing of civilians, and this argument appears to be yet another diversionary tactic.

Moreover, it is difficult to talk up the Israeli government’s record on social rights, given that it has consistently deprived Palestinians of human rights. For instance, Palestinians do not have freedom of movement, and those in Gaza and the West Bank do not have voting rights in Israel’s elections, despite the Israeli government’s control of the region and over their lives. Moreover, Palestinians in the West Bank struggle with exercising the right to due process and are tried under Israeli military law, where conviction rates are reported to be extremely high, some allege as much as 99%. Finally, the greatest example of human rights abuse can be found in the Israeli government’s reported mass killings of civilians in Gaza, in what many experts have described as a genocide against the people of Palestine.

‘It’s all Hamas propaganda’

As evidence for the Israeli government’s war crimes, I brought up the recently reported ‘double tap’ bombing of Nasser Hospital, which saw the deaths of 20 civilians, including first responders and journalists. I also cited other reported breaches: paramedics allegedly buried with their ambulances, and doctors testifying to children shot in the head by IDF snipers.

In response to my example of Nasser Hospital, he noted that it was a “designated strategic target, so must’ve been harbouring Hamas terrorists or ammunition (all things they have done).” A common defence, which diverts blame from the Israeli government. Firstly, in this case, there is currently no evidence that the hospital was harbouring either Hamas terrorists or ammunition, and Netanyahu himself has dubbed it a “tragic mishap”. The Israeli government claimed it targeted a Hamas-operated surveillance camera, but The New York Times video analysis found no evidence of one. Even if there was, this still would not explain the targeting of two separate stairwells or the “double tap” nature of the strikes.

If Israel allowed international media into Gaza, these allegations could be verified, but they continue to block access. Frustratingly, this very blockade means I’m left describing every report coming from Gaza as ‘alleged’

Answering my points over various alleged war crimes of buried paramedics and children shot in the head, he simply noted that it was propaganda by Hamas, citing “many videos of Palestinians faking war crimes” as evidence. I noted that many of the latter claims come from the sworn testimonies of international doctors, who were on the ground in Gaza, not videos online. If Israel allowed international media into Gaza, these allegations could be verified, but they continue to block access. Frustratingly, this very blockade means I’m left describing every report coming from Gaza as ‘alleged’.

His rejection of all reports regarding IDF war crimes, combined with the Israeli government’s existing pattern of deception and blockade of international journalists, makes his suggestion that these reports are all Hamas propaganda seem conspiratorial and downright farcical. Unfortunately, once someone has reached this level of denial, productive dialogue becomes almost impossible.

The middle ground fallacy

I have also seen people remark, in reference to this conflict, that ‘the two are as bad as each other’. Both Hamas and the Israeli government have indeed done indefensible things. Hamas is responsible for the atrocities of October 7 and is a designated terrorist group, accountable for countless civilian casualties. The Israeli government is similarly culpable for civilian deaths, and its leader is subject to a requested arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court.

Importantly, however, it is only one of these groups that the traditional media and governments have sought to defend; it is only one of them that is responsible for a reported 63,000 deaths (including 18,000 children), and it is only one of them that is invading the other’s territory. Moreover, people’s taxes are not going towards defending and aligning with Hamas or entertaining its leaders and facilitating its purchase of weapons.

This article is not about winning an argument with a friend or resolving the conflict through debate, but about exposing the flawed logic used to excuse mass civilian suffering

Finally, such a position is underpinned by the faulty argument that those defending the civilians of Palestine are defending Hamas. Simply stating that both Hamas and the Israeli government are ‘bad’ creates a false dichotomy, ignoring those who condemn Hamas while opposing Israeli civilian killings, oversimplifying the conflict, and reinforcing complicity.

This article is not about winning an argument with a friend or resolving the conflict through debate, but about exposing the flawed logic used to excuse mass civilian suffering at the hands of the Israeli government. If we do not challenge these fallacies when they arise, we risk complicity in the ongoing denial of human rights in Palestine, where millions of civilians face a daily struggle to survive. While the situation is complex, that complexity does not excuse human rights violations and war crimes. Ultimately, it is my hope that people of all ethnicities, nationalities, and religions in the region can one day live equally and with dignity, and to achieve this, we must call out abuses wherever they occur.