What's the significance of calling it "Israel-Hamas War" vs "Israel-Gaza War"?
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.
Hamas is elected via a minority of Gaza as a result Hamas doesn't act with the will of the majority and calling this the Israeli-Gaza war is disingenuous to the people of Gaza.
Hamas were elected in January 2006 and have refused new elections since.
The average person in Gaza was somewhere between "way too young to vote" and "didn't exist yet" the last time an election was held
And as half the population of Gaza is under 18, they for sure didn't vote for them.
On top of that, Nethanyahu has greatly supported Hamas and sabotaged moderate political alternatives
Isn't Gaza losing more people to this so called war than either Hamas or Israel?
This feels like saying there was a fight between two people and not mentioning that the biggest fighter only seemed to really be attacking a third smaller, less-aged person for some odd reason.
gaza is the location, hamas are the terrorists that govern it
"terrorist" is loaded language.
Is Israel doing terrible things and committing war crimes that border on genocide? Yes. Is Hamas a terrorist group? Yes
Edit: can’t believe I didn’t recognize the account. It’s a troll. They comment stupid stuff all over. Check the comment history if you don’t believe me
Jeez, 1.24k comments in 3 months. I get what people mean when they tell someone to "touch grass"
To be fair… that’s about what I have too lol, in only a slightly longer timeframe. But at least mine aren’t just for the sake of amassing downvotes
Least terminally online Twitter leftist
Thank goodness for the user notes feature in Connect for Android.
calling them terrorist just means you don't like their politics
Nah, that means they're using terror as their politics. Republicans in the US are fucking idiots and no one sane likes their politics, yet I don't see people calling them terrorists.
No, Hamas is a fucking terrorist group that hasn’t allowed an election since they staged a coup in 2007. They kill civilians and use civilian infrastructure as military strongpoints.
hell, when it comes to hamas, "govern" is an opinion too
“rule” might be the right verb here
When Israel stops bombing Gaza residents indiscriminately I will then consider calling it a war against Hamas.
William Montgomery says we ain't ever gonna stop.
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)
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.
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.
It's a nice bit of doublespeak.
Imagine if the UK started carpet-bombing major cities in Northern Ireland, and called it UK vs the IRA, as opposed to UK vs NI.
See, we're not killing people, we're killing terrorists. It's fine, stop complaining, just let us do it.
One might even say its how language works nowadays... Newspeak if you will
Hamas is the organization that runs gaza. Theyre the largest political party in Palestine, they collect taxes, and they have an army. Imagine if the US Army was on the election ballot, and ran the East Coast.
Its essentially the same thing, just "Hamas/Israel" reminds you of what Hamas does, and "Gaza/Israel" is trying to erase that.
They have not allowed an election to be held in 17 years. They’re no more a “political party” than the Taliban.
Yeah thats true. Political group maybe? Not exactly sure how to label them.
The first is ideologies, the second is location.
It matters very little. It's performative, trying to justify the conflict by framing it one way or another. The reality on the ground will remain the same no matter what the media calls it. Ultimately, it will be historians that name the war.
The combatants are Israel and Hamas. The location is Gaza. Conclude from that what you will as far the "proper" name for the conflict.
Both are pure propaganda - Israel, and the western countries that backs it, wants to pretend that this is some "new" conflict and not the very same one Israel has been waging non-stop against Palestinians since 1949.
Seems to be like a more accurate description would be the Israeli perpetrated Gazan genocide. Calling it a war is like taking a flamethrower to your backyard because you stepped on a nettle and then calling it lawn care
"explain why I should be offended".. fixed the title for you.
Gaza was given to Arabs for self rule and determination in 2005, all Jews left Gaza, even Jewish graveyards were dug up and moved, it was theirs to do with as they liked.
They've spent the last 18 years making into a terrorist Disneyland with a dozen Islamofascist terrorist organizations with the stated goal of killing Jews and destroying the state of Israel, they've fired hundreds of thousands of missiles into Israel indiscriminately targeting civilians, and launched countless cross borders attacks against Jewish civilians, including one that caused the largest loss of Jewish life in any single day, anywhere, since the Holocaust on October 7th.
They were given Gaza to live in freedom and self determination, they used it to kill Jews. They were warned. They chose to ignore the warnings.
These acts of terrorism were perpetrated by the entire Gazan community, they voted for Hamas, and allowed Hamas to rule their government for the last 17 years, Hamas and all the other Islamic terrorists in Gaza are not outsiders, they were born in Gaza of Gazans, they were raised in Gaza, they were educated in Gaza, they married and had children of their own in Gaza, their Parents, teachers, mosques, hospitals, are all in Gaza, from which they use to hid and store weapons to attack Jews, Hamas, PIJ and all the other Islamic terrorist in Gaza ARE Gaza, there has been no uprising in Gaza, there have only been attacks on Israel. This is what Gazans have supported and sacrificed for in every way they possibly could.
And now it's here. I do hope they enjoy what they've worked generationaly to achieve.
There will be no ceasefire this time.
Who is they? Hamas didn't win a majority in the 2006 election. Then they fought a civil war and took autocratic control in 2007. So what are you talking about when you say they? It certainly isn't all Gazans or Palestinians.
You're championing genocide and the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Do you honestly believe that a terrorist attack allows the unrestrained murder of civilians?