The main clashes of the debate were :

Ethnic cleansing definition: Side government’s characterised

ethnic cleansing as displacement of Palestinians without any
form of compensation, institution or occupation. This was
rebutted by opposition saying that it was instead a war crime,
that the motive of Israel behind it is military strategy and
ethnic cleansing is extermination of a concentrated group.
This minor clash goes to side opposition because they are
able to prove that if indeed ethnic cleansing was taking place,
then the extermination of Palestinians would be uniform.
However, the scenario is that Israelis want west bank for
their political and military strategy, to create a buffer zone.

Outcome and reactions: Side government argues that the

outcomes of labelling it as ethnic cleansing are that human
rights violations would stop, and the international
community will recognise. However, side opp argues that
labelling it as ethnic cleansing has more harms than good. It
will give Hamas and other radical Muslim groups a victim
narrative and can lead to a lot of radicalisation and
victimisation of the displaced Palestinians.
Also, side opposition places immense importance on conflict
resolution and negotiation. They argue that the international
community is not recognising netanyahu's efforts towards
moderation and peace and labelling it as ethnic cleaning will
remove any chances of conflict resolution.
Why side government tends to win this debate is through the
rebuttals to above arguments. Side government argues that
in the current scenario, there is an internalisation of
oppression on Palestinians, that they suffer from a legacy of
oppression and they don't have basic psychological security
after displacement, something which the opp fails to engage
with. They argue that conflict resolution does not exist on
their side because there is a recurrent viscous cycle of
oppression being used currently by Israelis.
Side opposition doesn't give me any mechanism as to how
they will eradicate this oppression and how the likelihood of
conflict resolution exists in a conservative model of
oppression like theirs. The propensity of oppression is more
than radicalisation in this debate and that is why, this debate
goes to side government.

The gov whip comes and analyses the debate and highlights the two analogies his side gives of Roma
and Africa and rebuts opposition’s case by the case that the definition of ethnic cleansing has
evolved. They say the Israelis use Palestinian children as human unarmed shields and the
displacement of ethnic Palestinians is indeed ethnic cleansing thereby rebutting their ethnic
cleansing definition argument. Other statements of opp’s case are rebutted by saying that it is not a
buffer zone if Israelis live in it and even if it is a war strategy, there is no legitimacy in conducting war
crimes. Moreover, rights violations will occur in opp’s model also. They rebut the argument of the
stance of US by saying that if US exerts pressure, Israel will step back like they with Iran.

He could engage more with the radicalisation narrative. Overall, he resolved all the clashes, engaged
with opposition properly and was able to justify why debate goes to gov. Great speech.