The tunnels are not well documented enough for, say, a map of them, are they? We don't know if there is a tunnel under x or y building that has been flattened. So that's not sufficient evidence.

Like I said, I think they're funny.

I don't expect to see anything, that's the point. That causes bias in your thinking. The evidence I have seen fulfils the criteria for war crimes, as I pointed out in my bullet-point list above. I accept that there can be excuses for these actions, but only when there is sufficient evidence to prove the extraordinary case. Now, we have seen the evidence that Israel has done these things, but we haven't seen the evidence that there are extraordinary factors. Occam's Razor requires that the explanation for an effect should contain as few agents as possible when considering the unknown causes. Adding in a tunnel network, or a Hamas base where there is no evidence for one is in violation of Occam's Razor. The simple explanation is that Israel is being indiscriminate in its attacks. As supporting factors, Israel has attacked indiscriminately and illegally in the past, and Israel has lied to the international media and community in the past.

When people ask me about my expertise I get excited that I get to talk about it. If someone were to refuse to believe me I would find it funny.

I can accept it if I'm shown evidence. I'm a scientist, I need data and a sound hypothesis to change my mind. I don't care about personal experience or lived truth when I'm trying to find objective truth.
If you'd like to sum up my reply as three words, that's up to you. If you want to believe that I'm taken by propaganda, that's fine too, but it's more than a little bit intellectually lazy. There are laws that define war crimes. In my reading of them, and many others', there is between little and no room for the evidence we've seen to amount to anything other than a war crime. At least a huge amount of compelling evidence the other way would be needed to exonerate. Take for example the footage we've seen of entire square kilometers of Gaza completely flattened by building. There we have evidence of the war crime of targeting civilian infrastructure except if there's also evidence that all of it was a Hamas base. Now, it seems unlikely that this is possible, unless everyone in Gaza is a member of Hamas. Another extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary evidence to be borne out.

In general, my view on the situation in Israel has been that there are no good guys. In recent days, though, I'm watching a democratic state ally of my country committing horrific crimes against humanity, with weapons provided by my country and other allies. Hamas never had my support. Netenyahu's Israel has lost it.

Civilian infrastructure are public works dedicated solely to civilians and does not inherently include power.

Did I say that civilian infrastructure includes power?

You do not understand war crimes.

I can read. I can read the UN charters. I understand war crimes.

Collective punishment implies no military purpose

No it does not. There is a definition in international law. Nothing is implied, it is defined.

Forcible relocation is only occurring if Israel does not allow them to return after the current conflict is concluded.

Again, relocating is defined in the UN charters. This is where you should go if you would like to understand the definitions of war crimes.

Israel has not ordered civilians to any specific area they have then bombed.

This has been independently verified by the BBC. Israel did exactly this, repeatedly.

Israel has a border. That's not blockading a population

And did Israel allow any Palestinians through that border after October 7th? Or did it close the border and bomb the Rafah crossing, thus blockading the entire Gaza Strip?

Not providing food is not the same thing as depriving of food

Not allowing any food in is depriving of food

Bombing a convoy of mismarked vehicles is not a war crime.

Vehicles were not mismarked, they were legit, as the Red Cross independently verified. You would also need some proof that they were mismarked before bombing them, which was not gathered.

Something called a refugee camp for 80 years is not an active refugee camp.

A "refugee camp" is not a refugee camp. What is it then? A tomato?

The IDF is not using white phosphorous munitions within Gaza City but have probably used it for illumination. This is perfectly legal.

It's not even remotely legal to use while phosphorus in areas where civilians are present, or even where event combatants may be present. Again, check the charters (chemical weapons).

Sources: Red Cross International, BBC, UN charters.

Ok so everything I wrote isn't wrong.
It's telling how you're accusing me of snark, when that's precisely all you've provided so far. Well, that and a rambling opinion piece on the Oslo accords in support of a tu quoque fallacy. And of not saying anything meaningful when I clearly made three substantive rebuttals above.
Cheers

It is accurate, and I can back it up with data. Is there anything in particular you think is incorrect? Or are you just annoyed with it in general.

You said "it is". And it's still a huge leap to infer that the call for freedom of Palestine would require the mass murder of anyone.
The chant doesn't say anything about harming anyone, and it doesn't say that Palestine is/shall be the only territory between the river and the sea.
This whole furore about the chant is devoid of logic.

Do you think we will be able to create or import enough renewable energy to fill the hole left by gas in the time it would take to build these reactors? How? And what is your response to the legitimate concern that renewable energy technology at its current maturity does not provide a stable power base?

Nuclear energy is much much cleaner than gas. If we can replace our reliance on gas with nuclear then that's a step in the right direction. If, for any reason whatsoever, nuclear is a more viable option than renewable, even if that reason is corporate greed, then we take it and then phase nuclear out later as we increase the renewable load. The situation is too urgent to quibble over which green energy to use. We just need to get shut of gas and coal.

Some facts:
Nuclear energy is not a contributor to greenhouse gases.
Nuclear power plants are safe.

I think the best response to this is to just show them your next few meetings on your calendar, with an air of bemusement.
If they're talking about hidden motives then they need to prove you have one first.