Calm with measured speech, but far more aggressive than general conversations.
Take notes, respond to everything.
Less hedging, absolute certainty with factual disagreements.
Force interlocutors to state a clear disagreement and to annunciate a clear counter-argument with accurate sourcing.
Open arms, aggressive posture.
Need to be incredibly firm on factual foundations for claims.
We need to establish shared agreements on what types of reporting or sources we can trust.
2. Why can’t we trust the IDF or Israel, when Israel is an open democracy that hosts a lot of its own criticism (Haaretz, B’Tselem, etc…), but we can trust Hamas, who makes nothing available to the public for investigation or inspection?
Force them to acknowledge when I have made a correct point, and move from there.
Stop allowing the “okay and” answer in response to things I’ve said, force them to acknowledge factual grounds I establish.
I need to force my interlocutors to stake strong, precise claims, do not allow them to weasel away from what they’re actually saying.
e.g.: if they believe Israel is targeting civilians with airstrikes, force them to admit that they are issuing top-down orders and policies to murder civilians for no reasons!
Address things people on the show have previously shared on social media, ask if they still agree with what they’ve said.
How did he not know about the genocidal special intent? If he read it 4 times?
There isn’t a single clip of anyone calling out a factual inaccuracy during that debate. How is that possible if my knowledge is so lacking?
This is incredible and inexplicable, I should have been battered around like a lost child in this conversation.
That Benny Morris agreed with me the entire time?
Solutions for problems need to be kept in mind ALWAYS.
The focus of all of my criticisms of the opposing rhetoric is that their criticisms of Israel make the problem unsolvable or intractable. My criticisms (since they are based in reality) provide real solutions to problems.
e.g.: if you think Israel is top-down genociding and targeting civilians, a claim you have no evidence for, that means that the only way to really solve the problem is to completely dismantle the Israeli government. This is probably never going to happen. My solution, focusing on recklessness, provides for us to demand more openness or transparency from the IDF when it conducts war.
What is a good end-goal for this conflict?
If it’s one state…
What does that look like, structurally? A demand for total equality between all people? What if Hamas gets elected again, do we overturn that government? What if the Arabs don’t even want a democratic government?
Do Jews have a reason to feel safe in their single state?
If they begin to suffer massacres, would they believe any foreign power would intervene?
Strong position requests.
Was October 7th justified?
Do we acknowledge the history of Palestinian terrorism? The PLO, Black September, the multiple plane hijackings?
The Fedayeen attacks all from ‘48 onwards?
The violence of the second intifada?
The violence towards Jews after Resolution 181?
Should funding to Palestinians be conditional?
Do we want to do regime change? Why were we opposed to it with Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi, The Houthis?
For Hamas, these are war crimes just to induce mistakes
Do they store ammo in houses?
Do they booby trap houses?
Do they take hostages?
Do they operate out of civilian hospitals? AlShifa…
Do they refuse to build bomb shelters for their citizens?
Do they refuse to coordinate to set up a humanitarian zone?
Do they steal aid?
Do they use ambulances to move around?
Do they operate in civilian clothing?
Do they tell their citizens not to leave their homes?