Strength Evaluation
Which of the following two arguments is stronger?

nlite relies on user feedback to rank submitted arguments. Please compare the strength of the two arguments below, ignoring all others.

The platform identifies the top arguments for each viewpoint independently of others. This implies that the competition occurs among arguments supporting the same viewpoint.

Argument A

Israel cut off electricity and water supplies to Gaza soon after October 7th. Additionally, food supplies to Gaza have been significantly reduced, with aid groups citing difficulty coordinating with the Israeli military as the primary reason. Evidence indicates civilians deliberately denied access to Food and water. Several humanitarian and government officials have indicated that the IDF has denied certain key items. Some Israeli citizens have also attempted to block aid trucks. These limited food supplies have led to the starvation and deaths of many innocent people, particularly vulnerable children.

These policies clearly constitute "collective punishment", which is strictly prohibited under international law. It is important to note that the popular Israeli argument of "collateral damage" does not even apply in this case.

Israeli officials have attempted to cast doubt on claims of a food shortage in Gaza. They cite certain "studies" and "images" showing overweight individuals. It's important to note that all such studies originate from Israeli sources, not independent ones. As for the images, they should be weighed against the many more photos emerging from Gaza that show visibly malnourished individuals. Ultimately, if the Israeli government is confident there is no food shortage, one must ask: why not allow international journalists in to see for themselves?

Source: Middle East Eye/AFP/Omar al-Qattaa

Argument B

There is ample evidence that Hamas has made attempts at peaceful coexistence with Israel in the past, but Israel rejected these efforts due to its overarching goal of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state.

When Hamas came to power in 2006 after a fair election, as confirmed by the UN and US, they repeatedly sent peace feelers to the Israeli government. However, the Israeli government dismissed all these efforts. Although a ceasefire was later reached, it was soon broken unilaterally by Israel. While it's true that Hamas at the time of sending peace feelers asked for the right of return for all refugees expelled from their homes in 1948—a demand not favored by Israel—one should note that, first, international law does recognize the right of return for expelled people, and second, Hamas presented it as a topic of negotiation, which Israel refused to engage in.

Additionally, in an effort to heal divisions within the Palestinian movement, Hamas issued a new charter in 2017 that endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders—a significant shift from its previous stance.

Israel dismissed all these efforts to prevent the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Overview