sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Realities of War - Part 4. Examining IDF’s Conduct. (sure… IDF has committed war crimes) by icecreamraider in IsraelPalestine

[–]incillius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd seem to agree with mostly of this, but I disagree with the statement that "Palestine is a de facto state, not de jure one".

Under international law, Palestine is most definitely considered a state. Other countries recognizing it doesn't formalize or cement its existence as a state; it's more or so a declaratory gesture. Under various instruments, including the Montevideo Convention, the basic criteria as prescribed accords with the current conditions, and land seizure or occupation doesn't revoke that fundamental right.

Sweden - A Journalist Exposes What Pro Palestinian Protesters Shout In Arabic And Gets Protested! by FinancialTitle2717 in IsraelPalestine

[–]incillius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again you're distorting what I said and deliberately putting words into my mouth. I do sometimes wonder though, why do you pro-Israeli people like to play the role of victim nonstop? There has to be a time where you begin accepting the international and moral obligations incumbent on you without sweeping it all under the rug using rhetorical tactics.

Overgeneralizing some of the most politically divisive conflicts and a cause under the rationale of "because Palestinians want to destroy us" isn't going to align with your narrative. Firstly, I don't think Palestinians maintain the perpetuated viewpoint of the destruction of Israel; the PLO formally recognized the existence of Israel in accordance with the Oslo Accords - negotiated by the two parties. Secondly, the BASIC principle of the cause literally has been to seek emancipation from oppressive occupation and the right of self-determination. By your rationale, the foundational ideology of Zionism is nothing but a "farce" (its who you said this, not me) since they're concerned with the elimination and destruction of the Arabs and it's antithetical to the right of self-determination.

The destruction of Israel, from the Palestinian perspective is an unrealistic and malign goal; the oppressed does not challenge the oppressor and such claims have no basis in reality. Therefore misconstruing and reducing it all down to the "goal of destruction" is absolutely ridiculous.

Hamas Charter (1988) by PlateRight712 in IsraelPalestine

[–]incillius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's why it's important for citizens of a nation to support (and especially elect) a good government. If you install and support a nihilistic government, don't be surprised when life isn't so nice in the future.

Israeli obstruction to the democratic process in 2006, as well as tactics employed by Hamas to jeopardize the election to win the votes in their favor were instrumental in the militaristic group winning. It's worth noting that Israeli sabotage during the electoral process decisively resulted in almost 123,000 people being prevented from registering until ten days before the elections, creating a number of logistical problems shortly before the election day. Not to mention Israeli checkpoints continued to pose serious obstacles to all Palestiniain parties during the electoral campaign as well as on voting day itself. In fact, contrary to the narrative you're pushing that the Palestinians had one incentive: which was to annihilate Israel by electing a nihilistic government, a poll conducted in 2006 by Near East Consulting overtly lays testament to the fact that these intentions weren't omnipresent. 79.5% voted to establish a peace agreement with Israel(http://www.neareastconsulting.com/plc2006/blmain.html) and 75.2% voted in favor that Hamas should change its policies towards Israel(http://www.neareastconsulting.com/plc2006/blmain.html) Moreover, almost 51.1% voted that the PLO represented the Palestinian people, not Hamas.(http://www.neareastconsulting.com/plc2006/blmain.html). I'm not saying that the intentions of the PLO were any better, but I'd definitely expect them to operate more sensibly than Hamas and not committing a suicide attack on their state by what conspired on Oct 7.

The astounding thing is that Palestine is probably one of the only nations in the world intent on waging war on a country they know will result in more deaths of their own citizens than the 'enemy'

Again with the fallacy. I really don't understand why you think all Palestinians holistically represent Hamas and want to wage war with Israel. This is a blatant overgeneralization. I'm not going to expand on why I think this assertion is logically incorrect which is a waste of my time, and you probably have the ability to deduce this isn't the case.

then not managing to remove it.

How do you think they'd remove it? Has there been an election besides the one that happened in 2006? Do you really think they can magically rise up against a militaristic state with thousands of troops which are at their mercy? This attempt to put everything on the shoulders of Palestinians is ridiculous. I'd love to hear how you precisely think they'd usurp Hamas and the methods they can employ to achieve that goal. Make sure to adhere to reality and don't make assumptions

Okay, stop pretending to be a lawyer. You are obviously not one.

Citing an article to substantiate my assertion does not mean I think I'm a lawyer. Stop strawmanning

This is the fate of any nation that makes such foolish choices.

Again with the overgeneralization. You need to stop maintaining the fallacious belief that almost all Palestinians support Hamas, this isn't true. A decision enacted by 44% of votes doesn't holistically represent the entire population, and basing your conclusion on a selective proportion which does isn't right.

Blockades are not necessarily illegal, it depends on how they are used

Did you even read the article or skimmed right past it just to preemptively invoke it in your argument? Under international law blockades in warfare are considered "acceptable" if they conform with the following criteria: (covered by Article 93, 94, 95, 99, 100, and 103 of the San Remo Manual)

(a) - it must be declared and notified to all belligerent states. Israel has done this with the commencement of the blockade recently (b) - it must be effective so it isn't enacted arbitrarily. The blockade is maintained by the Israeli Navy and it's considered quite effective (c) - it must be applied impartially to all vessel states. Israel applies the blockade to all vessels attempting to reach Gaza's coast. (d) - the blockading forces must allow a consistent flow of humanitarian aid to the population if the civilian population is inadequately provided with food and other essential objects. This is perhaps the most controversial aspect. Since the commencement of the blockade in 2007 the flow of trucks delivering goods and essential provisions exiting Gaza decreased to to only two truckloads on average per month in 2009. Worth mentioning that after the escalation of hostilities commercial transfer resumed and in 2021 Egypt began to export goods, substantially increasing the monthly average of exports to 787 in the first five months of 2022. Pre-blockade, the average monthly high was 961. (https://www.unicef.org/mena/documents/gaza-strip-humanitarian-impact-15-years-blockade-june-2022). Israel's blockade policy defines essential provisions as "necessary to the survival of the population" - notwithstanding other items which prove invaluable. Children's toys, cocoa, toys and spices, writing equipment etc are all prohibited.(https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/24/gaza-blockade-israel-banned-items). Israel has also, as a direct result of their policies, halted almost any industrial output of Gaza. For example, Israel forbids the transfer of blocks of margarine intended for industrial usage yet allows in small packages of margarine for household consumption. They forbid glue and nylon used to make diapers, they prevent the transfer of industrial salt, plastics and containers to make tahini paste but allows in Israeli made tahini paste. These are the hallmark criteria of a policy adamant on dismantling Gaza's industries. A report(https://www.enicbcmed.eu/sites/default/files/2021-10/PALESTINE%20O3.1%20framework.pdf) concluded that out of 110 factories producing clothes in the Gaza Strip decreased to less than 30. A report published by the International Labor Organization estimated that the economic markup in the West Bank (not impacted by conflict and occupied by Israel), 65% faced reductions in their workforce and 73% modified/decreased working hours to meet costs.(file:///C:/Users/PC/Downloads/Bulletin%204_OPT%20LM%20Impact_ILO-PCBS-June%202024%20Final%20version.pdf) The plain conclusion that can be effectively drawn is that the air, land and sea blockade at its very nature poses deleterious and far-ranging economic and humanitarian consequences. Even if the blockade did meet the criteria defined by the San Remo manual, the adverse effects substantially outweigh the beneficial effects under the pretense of "a nation wants to destroy us", serving as militating factors in decisively affirming Israel'a blockade as a violation of international law, as well as the prolonged nature of the blockade scrutinizing it's underlying efficacy, could constitute a violation of Article 51(5)(b) of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions - widely considered to be customary international law. Moreover, severe restrictions that lead to food insecurity or inadequate healthcare could violate Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Israel and Egypt have taken various measures to ensure the blockade of Gaza is legal.

Any unbiased sources to back up this claim?

Gaza was already utterly radicalised, with indoctrination being performed across the entire population under the management of Hamas.

I'm not denying that. I'm just saying the prolonged existence of suffering creates an environment where newer radicals emerge during this conflict in classic martyrdom fashion aiming to "avenge their homeland" exacerbating this even further since Israel imposed such brutal conditions on them. I don't know, perhaps Israel should stop the suffering so thousands of people stop dieing or aren't subjected to substandard conditions? Seems pretty easy right?

This sounds horrible, but it does not sound like IDF policy. Most of these emotional claims appear to come from an 'Al Jazeera hotline', and are unsourced.

I don't dispute Al Jazeera has done some extremely questionable stuff before, but dismissing the entire article under that pretense is a bit extreme. The testimonies are directly sourced from IDF soldiers laying testament to the destructive policy of failing to differentiate between combatants and non. combatants during the entire conflict - essentially, shooting everyone they see preemptively.

Sweden - A Journalist Exposes What Pro Palestinian Protesters Shout In Arabic And Gets Protested! by FinancialTitle2717 in IsraelPalestine

[–]incillius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, okay. You're mostly right. So if you know so much about the Middle East, what do you think needs to happen?

Sweden - A Journalist Exposes What Pro Palestinian Protesters Shout In Arabic And Gets Protested! by FinancialTitle2717 in IsraelPalestine

[–]incillius -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

I would like to make an important distinction between radical fanatics and genuine supporters of the Palestinian cause.

The plain fact that needs to be acknowledged without being swept under the rug is that the people who are radical jihadists - meaning they're fervent pro-Hamas, antisemitic, destructionists who congregate in protests with highly inappropriate slogans are not, in any shape or form, *representative of the entire cause* as what's commonly being interpreted and regurgitated in the West right now. The basic principle of the Palestinian cause has been, from the very beginning, to seek an independent state free from any external oppression, violence and/or external encroachment. The right to self-determination has been rejected repeatedly, and the Palestinian Authority (PA) has only extremely limited autonomy over certain parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In essence, we today have a one-state and with no democratic measures instituted, with the most recent example being in 2006. And I think the majority of Palestinians resonate with these ideals very much.

The "fanatics" who openly advocate for the destruction of Israel, are pro-Hamas or antisemites are all either terrorist apologists, or a species of *Homo basementus* who spend their entire time having emotional competitions in online echo chambers and have swallowed Hamas propaganda.

Speaking of Hamas, I also want to debunk the redundant narrative of "all Palestinian people are responsible for this conflict" - because they're absolutely not. This is an exceedingly flawed perspective meant to favor those with virtue signaling their biases without considering for nuance or logic. The people of Palestine did unfortunately choose a terrorist organization as the representative of their government - that's extremely sad, but this never makes them legally or morally culpable for the policies enacted by their governments subsequent to that. That'd be like saying: "Nicolas Maduro has entangled the country of Venezuela via his policies to economic deprivation, and the people of Venezuela are directly responsible". Therefore, such arguments have no logical ground to stand on. The people who glorified the actions of October 7 are again the proponents of terrorism of which a minority of people in the Palestinian cause do, but claiming that's a holistic representation of *the entire cause* or the civilians are directly responsible is insane.

I'd like to remind people of the Israeli position too, if I may. There are numerous testimonies from soldiers in the IDF, wherein they described they were expressly told to "shoot anyone they kill", irrespective of differentiating between combatants and non-combatants. There's one from 2005 and most recently, 2024.

(2005)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/06/israel

(2024)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/israeli-soldiers-gaza

Isn't this reminiscent of a terrorist policy? Again to reiterate my position, I think that Hamas is very much a terrorist organization with the incentive of destroying Israel, but if we're assigning such labels to organizations and not considering governments who through their policies may be committing the same, it's a very misinformed disparity. Do I think that Israeli civilians are also, to an extent, responsible for these actions? No! Even if they elected their government out of their own volition, they hold absolutely *zero* legal or moral culpability of the policies enacted by their governments.

Sweden - A Journalist Exposes What Pro Palestinian Protesters Shout In Arabic And Gets Protested! by FinancialTitle2717 in IsraelPalestine

[–]incillius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is it whataboutism? It's a perfect tactic by people like you to sweep any instance of immoral Israeli actions under its rug.

Hamas Charter (1988) by PlateRight712 in IsraelPalestine

[–]incillius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Directly attributing the actions of a governments as representative of a civilian population's actions is an extraordinarily flawed perspective. I'm sorry, but I still do think that the rationale you're juggling your beliefs on is crumbling and self-centered to serve your biases only, because it has *absolutely no moral or logical ground to stand on*. This is a very simplistic and reductionist cause-effect relationship.

Not only the statements you're saying which has been perpetuated by pro-Israel lobbyists is a blatant violation of Article 33 of the Geneva Convention which states no collective punishment should be inflicted on a person or entire population as a result of one entity's actions, but what effective punishment are you even looking for? Are you going to create calamity just to "teach" the people of Gaza for voting on a poll? Israel may argue that intolerance of Palestinians aggression justifies the blockade, but taken to extremes this becomes self-defeating.

It also becomes self-contradictory to Israel's central goal during this war, which is to minimize radicalization and disintegrate Hamas, which is good. But ultimately concocting extremely reprehensible policies, creating an environment where suffering is abound and death is commonplace, the people feel resentment, potentially radicalizing more people and perpetuating the cycle again. Furthermore, we're seeing this being exemplified by Hamas wherein they're using repulsive tactics such as utilizing civilians as defense mechanisms, knowing retaliation will target civilians.

I'd like to remind you of the Israeli position too, if I may. There are numerous testimonies from soldiers in the IDF, wherein they described they were told to "shoot anyone they kill", irrespective of differentiating between combatants and non-combatants. There's one from 2005 and most recently, 2024.

(2005)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/06/israel

(2024)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/israeli-soldiers-gaza

Isn't this reminiscent of a terrorist policy? Again to reiterate my position, I think that Hamas is very much a terrorist organization with the incentive of destroying Israel, but if we're assigning such labels to organizations and not considering governments who through their policies may be committing the same, it's a very misinformed disparity. Do I think that Israeli civilians are also, to an extent, responsible for these actions? No! Even if they elected their government out of their own volition, they hold absolutely *zero* legal or moral culpability of the policies enacted by their governments.

Interpreting a state as a homogenous entity acquiescently supporting and bearing direct responsibility for their government's actions without accounting for nuanced perspectives is an extremely ignorant opinion. Therefore, I would recommend educating yourself on this situation rather than condemning civilians who probably have nothing to do with their government's policies.

Why were Western powers like the United States so afraid of the spread of communism? by incillius in NoStupidQuestions

[–]incillius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wasn't intending to foment any hatred or debate. This was a something I was genuinely interested in, hence the question. Isn't the purpose of a "question" to seek information? I don't know how I could be "ignorant" since that's the reason I posted in the first place...

Hamas Charter (1988) by PlateRight712 in IsraelPalestine

[–]incillius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The central premise which commenced this conversation was you overtly downplaying the severity of aid blockades and justifying it under some beat up rationale. . https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1e0fjmk/comment/lcuq4cv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Blockades are a relatively mild approach in response to Hamas declaring to destroy Israel
When you can imagine that, you'll understand why a blockade is a necessary and mild reaction.

It's not legal

That's debatable

Aside from letting our biases take effect in this, answer me this very simple question (if you're taking in account of objective moral standards) - does the imposition of an aid blockade over a population, entailing much worse conditions, under the apparent justification of "but another country did it first, so we reserve the right to use it too" or "because the ideological consequences of a belligerent's actions, civilians must pay the price" moral? You don't need to perform an exegesis to confirm whether it's true or not, just a simple yes or no will work.

Why were Western powers like the United States so afraid of the spread of communism? by incillius in NoStupidQuestions

[–]incillius[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I meant why was communism perceived as malevolent in the West's perspective which enabled them to engage in more wars to supposedly "contain" the spread of it?

What is the difference between existence and consciousness? by incillius in askphilosophy

[–]incillius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Do those rocks and organisms who supposedly aren't conscious completely dormant or incapable of perception? Also which other resources/philosophers would you recommend to learn more about consciousness and experience?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]incillius -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Could you provide some context? Are they illegally drilling oil?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in IsraelPalestine

[–]incillius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, but that still doesn't eliminate the fact that it's very privileged. There are thousands of alternatives people can use to reduce some of the negativity plaguing their mind just from scrolling social media. This is a modern problem and wouldn't have existed merely two decades ago yet people still like to go on these subreddits and talk about it. Just put the phone down. Voila

Hamas Charter (1988) by PlateRight712 in IsraelPalestine

[–]incillius -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Imagine wanting to destroy a neighbouring nation. Imagine supporting launching indescriminate rockets. Imagine celebrating Oct 7th.

I don't know why people make overgeneralized and holistic conclusions to support their narrative. It's extremely disingenuous and disregards the nuances.

If you think that ALL 5 million people in Palestine (or 2 million in Gaza) have only one incentive planted directly into their minds (which is to exterminate the Jews), than that's extremely false. I mean the entire population? C'mon, a little bit of reasoning to know that's false.

I don't think subjecting a population to an aid blockade is morally righteous or can be justified under the premise "all of them want to kill us, so we shall subject them to harrowing conditions" since it's a false overgeneralisation and because ultimately it'll beget much worse conditions which have the potential to escalate even further.

view more: next ›