I’m in the US.
I haven’t discerned a pattern, by the media, in the titling of the horror currently underway.
I’ve seen Al Jazeera use both phrasings. I haven’t determined that other media sites are hardlining their terminology either, but I notice the difference as I browse.
Maybe it doesn’t mean anything, but these days people seem extra sensitive about names.
To me it’s who’s trying to kill who. Hamas (the group) wants to destroy Israel, Israel in turn wants to destroy Hamas, not Gaza (this part is actually very subjective)
deleted by creator
It’s a good way to frame things. As an outsider, the subjectivity of the IDF’s target is why I wonder if people are choosing one term for the war over another. Some see the intentional bombing of refugee camps, ambulances, and aid convoys as targeting the civilians of Gaza in what amounts to a systematic extermination of Palestinians. The casualty numbers seem to heavily favor that interpretation. So could this be one reason for some news outlets to frame the conflict as Israel vs Gaza itself? Or is the word choice more nuanced than that, given how it seems as though the two names are being used interchangeably on both sides of the line?
Israel is definitely attacking Gaza, but Gaza isn’t an entity with the ability to fight back. Thus ‘Israel–Gaza war’ is a false equivalence.
Similarly, ‘Israel–Hamas war’ is troublesome because both are also attacking people not part of the conflict.
Maybe it’s ‘a series of Israel & Hamas terrorist attacks in the region of Gaza’ 🤷
Whoever thinks Israel purposefully targets civilians ignores how Hamas operates. It has been documented for years by the UN and human rights organizations that they use civilians as shields.
Getting Palestinian civilians dead is part of their strategy.
That’s also entirely unfair to the long standing apartheid state Israel has run against Palestinians. Push anyone long enough and they push back.
Kids throw rocks? Fuckin execute them, according to the IDF.
I’m not defending Israel settlements in the West Bank.
But that’s largely independent from Hamas actions or intentions. Hamas was founded before the first intifada, and it existed at relatively peaceful times when the talks about a two state solution were meant serious on the Israeli side. Their intentions then were not different from today’s.
Hamas never wanted peace, and they never wanted to peacefully coexist.
(*) edit: wait did you say me pointing out how Hamas uses civilians as shields is unfair against the Hamas??
I had a problem with your opener:
They have for a while, and currently they are. And it’s well known and historically proven that behavior like that results in backlash eventually. And then nothing good happens.
You didn’t read the follow up after my opening that you had problems with.
Or you are ignoring how Hamas operates.
The claim that Hamas reacts to anything that Israel does in the West Bank is a myth.
Yeah the last point being so subjective is why many call it Israel vs Gaza and or Hamas. I find that Israel vs Hamas is more fitting however. This is because many civilian casualties are because Hamas officials use the population as their meat shield. Many of those schools, hospitals and other civilian centers often contained a cowardly official of Hamas. It’s important to acknowledge that this does not make it any less tragic but it does demonstrate Israel’s main objective is destroying Hamas and their leaders rather than Gaza itself. It’s all about intent
I agree that intent is an important consideration. In war, combatants are obligated to be intentional with who they target. That intentionality is even codified into international law. It’s why we say that civilian casualties must be minimized whenever possible. By law, commanders must attempt to discriminate between military and civilian targets, applying force appropriately to target only those who are part of the conflict. By law, retaliation is governed by the principal of minimum force, meaning only so much force as is required to remove the threat, and no more.
When those of us outside the conflict zone are confronted with dead children on the front page, that’s the standard of “intent” we’re weighing our reactions against. For many, it’s hard to see how attacks on refugee camps were intended to spare refugees. How attacks on aid convoys and ambulances intended to spare the sick and wounded. How refusing to allow food, water, and the gasoline that hospitals need in order to operate is intended to safeguard the welfare of civilians who have been forced to drink sea water just to stay alive. Even if Hamas is using the population as human shields, it doesn’t change that the intent should be to spare those civilians in spite of Hamas’ actions. They’re fellow human beings. They deserve that bare minimum of thought. Sure, dropping an atomic bomb on Gaza City would wipe out the terrorists, but I think we’d all agree that’d be a war crime since it would also murder millions. The same logic applies here on the smaller scale (though 10,000 residents - half of them children - isn’t exactly “small scale”). That’s why it’s hard to see intention in those headlines. At least aside from the intention to do exactly what you’d expect bombing a refugee camp to do - murder refugees. The indiscriminate leveling of a region isn’t targeted, but it sure as hell looks intentional.
I desperately want to be wrong here, and like I said, I’m an outside observer from America just like you. But that’s the train of logic that I see dominating calls for a humanitarian pause over here, and it’s rather compelling.
That’s what Hamas wants - forcing Israel to either not attack them because of civilians or for the whole world to condemn the attacks. That’s why they use civilians.
But they don’t particularly understand that you have to give your enemy an out - if Israel is fucked whether they attack or not, why shouldn’t they attack? They’ll still be fucked but they’ll at least stop worrying about this particular enemy.
The difference is that “in for a penny, in for a pound” implies all options are equal as long as the objective is achieved. “Surgical strike that kills 24 civilians? Nuclear strike that kills 2,400,000? Something in between? Why bother weighing the pros and cons because we’re fucked on the world stage either way. Might as well go big.” It’s an argument designed to sidestep the very real debate over “acceptable loss” calculations and the duty to safeguard human life. No one is saying that Israel shouldn’t retaliate. No one is saying that Hamas is playing fair. What they are saying is that 10,000 dead refugees might look like Israel doesn’t care that they’re dead. Especially when Israel says they targeted refugee camps and ambulances on purpose. And when you chime in saying “fuck it, just kill 'em” to a simple plea of “maybe count the kids before killing 'em all.”
The IDF is in an impossible situation, but the answer isn’t to shut down debate, it’s to actually talk about where the line should be drawn and try to minimize civilian harm. Allow foreign aid to reach the starving children. Allow civilians to leave the city. Listen to why there’s an outcry against indiscriminate bombings. Palestinians aren’t “meat shields.” Hamas might be hiding behind them, but that doesn’t mean you have to aim straight at the “shields” and pull the trigger. They’re people, and deserve more consideration than a simple “fuck it, what’s a little genocide if the bad guy’s dead?”
I don’t really know how you came to the conclusion that I somehow endorse the killing. I’m just a realist and Hamas gave Israel these options:
I’m just saying that’s kinda easy decision on Israel’s side, I’m not saying “fuck it, just kill 'em”.
Hamas is holding hostages and Israel’s deciding to kill those hostages.