Israel-Hamas War 2023

[crazy canuck]

I again note that the violence is between Hamas and Israel, and not between Gaza and Israel

[OttoVonBismarck]

I again note that the violence is between Hamas and Israel, and not between Gaza and Israel

You aren't noting that, you are "falsely stating something."

[crazy canuck]

I again note that the violence is between Hamas and Israel, and not between Gaza and Israel

You aren't noting that, you are "falsely stating something."

The right wing pro Israeli no matter what echo chamber here is something of a concern, not that you exist but more that you might reflect what the wider population in the US thinks.

[Valmy]

I would say the wider population of the United States doesn't give a fuck about this.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean, the premise that two countries are belligerents in war, but one of the countries ought be referred to only by the name of the country (Israel) and the other only by the name of the political faction that runs the country (referring to Gaza as "Hamas") is asinine and stupid.

[Tamas]

Yeah I don't remember anyone insisting The Nazi Party vs. the Allied States, heck not even on Iraqi Insurgents vs the US Government.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Or "the Republican party's war against the Ba'athist Party" or "the Republican party's war against the Taliban."

Those were just called the American war against (or "in") Iraq, American war against (or "in") Afghanistan etc.

Everyone understood America was at war with Germany and Japan in WWII, not the Nazi Party or the faction of ultranationalist Japanese militarists.

[OttoVonBismarck]

If you really want to call one of the belligerents "Hamas" you will have to call the other belligerent "Netanyahu's coalition."

[PJL]

Even the BBC call it the Israel-Gaza war on their news website. So I have no problem with people using that here.

[Josephus]

Pdox Israel-Palestine thread is closed.  Fucking Communist Chilean guy kept going on about dead kids and that broke the rules apparently.

Never got the logic of closing the thread because of one poster's behavior.  You're basically giving the least behaved members of your forum a veto over what gets discussed.

Surprised it lasted this long though to be honest. Pdox is always shutting down OT threads...or worse kicking people out. 

[grumbler]

Even the BBC call it the Israel-Gaza war on their news website. So I have no problem with people using that here.

Yes, the latest war has legitimized Hamas's rule of Gaza in the eyes of a lot of journalists.  If Hamas = Gaza, journalists are spared a lot of moral issues that they could not deal with without real effort.

[crazy canuck]

I would say the wider population of the United States doesn't give a fuck about this.

That is reassuring, I guess. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

Even the BBC call it the Israel-Gaza war on their news website. So I have no problem with people using that here.

Yes, the latest war has legitimized Hamas's rule of Gaza in the eyes of a lot of journalists.  If Hamas = Gaza, journalists are spared a lot of moral issues that they could not deal with without real effort.

Legitimate or not, they are the rulers of Gaza. Like it becomes stupidly cumbersome to litigate legitimacy when reporting on belligerents in a war. If China invades Taiwan tomorrow are journalists expected to say "China is subjugating its illegal breakaway province", after all, under international law, there is no country called Taiwan. U.S. policy accepts One China.

One can speak of a country without having to delve into those issues, particularly when the issue being reported on is a war, and you aren't talking about the nature of the political system / political leadership.

[The Brain]

I find the idea that it is somehow strange for a government to represent its country when it performs actions weird. Russia attacked Ukraine, and is at war with Ukraine. Both of those would still be true even if Putin's regime were to fall. Just like Russia was still at war with Germany after the Czarist regime fell, or Germany was at war with France even after the Kaiser fell. Gaza attacked Israel on Oct 7. Why would this be controversial (rhetorical)?

You have to have a pretty fucked up view of things to entertain the idea that this fact makes civilians somehow enjoy fewer rights. I think Russia is a shit country and Russians in general very assholish, but Russian civilians still have the same rights as other civilians. So do civilians in Gaza. How responsible they may or may not be, or if they support the actions of their government or not, doesn't matter. As civilians they enjoy the rights of civilians.

[The Minsky Moment]

When bin Laden's cohorts attacked America, it didn't create a state of war between Saudi Arabia and the United States.  It didn't even create one between the US and Afghanistan although a de facto one eventually developed out of the incident.  The raid on Entebbe didn't create a state of war between Israel and Uganda.  Neither NATO nor its constituent nations went to war with Serbia in 90s despite a fair amount of explosions and dying.  These are a few examples; it's easy to come up with many more.  Not every armed conflict is a good fit for the standard model of state warfare.

The Russia-Ukraine war fits neatly into state vs state war between two sovereigns but not every armed conflict does and the current ME mess is one that does not.  Hamas is not a de jure government and Gaza is not a de jure state, and the "de factos on the ground" are muddled.  The involvement of disparate militias and resistance groups - from Hezbollah to the Houthis to the [insert Iranian sponsored milita of the week here] - none of which constitute recognized governments of recognized states, doesn't help clarify matters.

As for the civilians in Gaza, they are civilians regardless of how you categorize the conflict. As a signatory to some international agreements on the treatment of civilians in war, in accordance with Israeli law, and in accordance with the IDF's own manuals, Israel and its forces have obligations to them, regardless of whether they are fighting an interstate war, a police action, or a Zippitydoodah.  That Hamas is on the other side is relevant for that analysis only because Hamas' practices of deliberately blurring civilian-militant distinctions, perfidy, and using civilian property and infrastructure for military purposes complicates Israel's ability to conduct operations while minimizing civilian casualties.  But the rules are still the rules.