Being kind to them is completely wasted effort.
Replying to them is also wasted effort as they won't be persuaded.
However leaving bullshit unchallenged might make trusting bystanders believe that this is actually the truth.
one side of this debate is very much NOT acting in good faith because they rely on the status quo being maintained to continue what they are doing
For every article you can find in support of one camp, one could find a counter piece from other credible sources as well (i.e. NYT vs The Economist and The Atlantic). For every NGO one can quote, someone else can quote from someone who've resigned, or once run/founded the very NGO that they're now criticizing (i.e. Danielle Haas, Ira Glasser, Nadine Strossen, Bob Bernstein). You can even pitch the NGOs against one another, such as HRW and Amnesty against the ADL.
Ultimately, bad faith actors are indeed the root cause of the problem. However, I think the bigger problem here is the inability of these bad faith actors to recognize that belong to the very group they're criticizing. If facts were all that mattered, I would expect to see more people expressing more nuanced takes, or express more uncertainty. After all, it would be rather surprising for a consumer of news to hold their view with that much confidence when even the mainstream sources they are relying on is in dispute with one another.
I don't think it is due to "bad faith actors" at all. I think it is better explained by (1) Israel/Palestine is a really hard problem, one where both sides have done wrong, and the "side" one is on often comes down with which wrong angers you more (which is more a question of subjective emotions than objective reasons), (2) the increasing tribalism and political polarisation of Western (and especially US) society, which gets overlaid on the Israel/Palestine conflict, however roughly (right-leaning people nowadays skew pro-Israel and left-leaning pro-Palestine, although there are an ever-shrinking number of exceptions to both generalisations)
The "bad faith actors" explanation is attractive precisely because it paints the problem as simpler and less intractable than it actually is
As I (think I) said in another comment, the strongest possible position one can adopt is the one supported by the facts. The Palestinian issue is so hard because there is an overwhelming amount of facts and only a few people are really in possession of all the facts. That's what skews the debate.
So e.g. when you go on the internet (I mean the-site-formerly-known-as-Twitter) you see a veritable fire hose of facts taken out of context. It's like people, humans, don't have a memory, they can only remember what's been posted on Twitter in the last week or so. The videos of Israel's atrocities circulate freely, but no videos of Hamas' atrocities circulate and even if they did, that was three months ago. So people kind of organically are shunted into one side, or the other, like sheep to slaughter, and there's no way to form an opinion that is really on the side of peace, huanitarian law, and human life.
So the solution is to not take sides and not try to form an opinion, even. Support peace, support IHL, support whoever is not talking about killing people, or taking over land, or waving flags, or saying who's right and who's wrong. In a war, to take sides is to perpetuate the war. To help people find peace we must stop taking sides.
Sooner or later, governments (and sometimes even other institutions) have to make binary choices – e.g. whether or not to vote for some UN resolution, whether or not to recognise the State of Palestine, etc. Of course, if one is just a private individual, not one of those leaders, one has the luxury of not choosing.
> for example, you can't target civilians, no matter who they are or what they or their homies have done, or who they support or don't support
You can't tell from footage of the aftermath of an airstrike whether it was illegitimate targeting of civilians or not. A big part of what it was depends on the intentions and knowledge of the military commander ordering the strike, which a video of its aftermath couldn't possibly convey.
> The Palestinian issue is so hard because there is an overwhelming amount of facts and only a few people are really in possession of all the facts
There is also a lot of interpretation of limited evidence – e.g. is event X an isolated incident or the norm? A video on social media can't tell you that. And even if a video is showing accurate footage of an incident, it usually can't convey the broader context of that incident.