Israel-Hamas War 2023

[OttoVonBismarck]

They also seem to have a memory defect of some sort.  They can't recall events from October 8, 2023 when Israel declared war on Hamas.

So you are accepting, then, that Israel has unilateral authority to determine Palestinian statehood? Israel's position is there is no Palestine, I take it you agree with that?

At some point you should just acknowledge Israel is not at war with Gaza.

There is nothing to acknowledge, referring to it as a war on Gaza is common--several mainstream news outlets have used the phrase. You're the one who had an emotional fit about it. There is no objective "truth" here, it is fine to call it any number of things. Most wars have multiple names. "Persian Gulf War", "Desert Storm" etc.

[The Minsky Moment]

Actually the status of the territory is not even legally established--the UN Partition Plan for Palestine was accepted by Israel, but no Arab countries, and there was a war followed by an armistice. The actual borders have never had a full, international legal resolution. It has been treated as Egyptian at times, later Israeli, but it is has never been formally settled.

I don't dispute this but it only reinforces the point.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is nothing to acknowledge, referring to it as a war on Gaza is common--several mainstream news outlets have used the phrase.

People can use whatever phrasing they want but what matters is the reality and not the terms used to describe it.  The Israelis want to talk about war on Hamas because they want to emphasize that they are not against the civilian population of Gaza.  That's fine but that rhetorical effort only goes so far when there is a perception that Israel was not discriminating in dropping ordinance on Gazan apartment blocks early in the war. If Israel wants to be perceived as not being against the Gazans, it should act like it cares for their welfare.

For the Gazans and some of their boosters, talking about a war on or against Gaza feeds their desired narrative of Israel making war on a people.  But inherent in that description is identification with Hamas as the de facto government of the territory and the unquestioned leaders of that "side" in the war.  And so making the rhetorical point against Israel risks a loss of sympathy from the sane and rational people of this planet who abhor Hamas.

Personally I would say it's a war *in* Gaza, seems the most descriptively accurate to me.  But it's a free country, call it what you want.

[crazy canuck]

Exactly so.  It is a war in Gaza.  And people who want to use rhetoric to suggest it is a war against Gaza or with Gaza miss the most important point that this is a conflict involving a terrorist organization.

[Jacob]

The implications of the different terms seem pretty clear to me.

"Israel-Gaza War" frames the conflict as one between states. Gazan civilian casualties, while regrettable, are a natural consequence of being citizens of a state that is party to the conflict. Additionally, it implies that an Israeli strategy of attacking until "the Gazan government" surrenders is reasonably logical - Israel's adversary is a state actor and can be fought as such.

"Israel-Hamas War" frames the conflict as one between a state and a non-state actor - a terrorist organization. To me it implies that Gazans who are not members of Hamas are innocent victims to a greater degree than if they're citizens of a state party to a war. On a strategy level it seems to make finding a convincing Israeli theory of victory harder, as non-state opponents historically are more challenging to defeat.

[Jacob]

People can use whatever phrasing they want but what matters is the reality and not the terms used to describe it.  The Israelis want to talk about war on Hamas because they want to emphasize that they are not against the civilian population of Gaza.  That's fine but that rhetorical effort only goes so far when there is a perception that Israel was not discriminating in dropping ordinance on Gazan apartment blocks early in the war. If Israel wants to be perceived as not being against the Gazans, it should act like it cares for their welfare.

For the Gazans and some of their boosters, talking about a war on or against Gaza feeds their desired narrative of Israel making war on a people.  But inherent in that description is identification with Hamas as the de facto government of the territory and the unquestioned leaders of that "side" in the war.  And so making the rhetorical point against Israel risks a loss of sympathy from the sane and rational people of this planet who abhor Hamas.

Personally I would say it's a war *in* Gaza, seems the most descriptively accurate to me.  But it's a free country, call it what you want.

I think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.

[crazy canuck]

People can use whatever phrasing they want but what matters is the reality and not the terms used to describe it.  The Israelis want to talk about war on Hamas because they want to emphasize that they are not against the civilian population of Gaza.  That's fine but that rhetorical effort only goes so far when there is a perception that Israel was not discriminating in dropping ordinance on Gazan apartment blocks early in the war. If Israel wants to be perceived as not being against the Gazans, it should act like it cares for their welfare.

For the Gazans and some of their boosters, talking about a war on or against Gaza feeds their desired narrative of Israel making war on a people.  But inherent in that description is identification with Hamas as the de facto government of the territory and the unquestioned leaders of that "side" in the war.  And so making the rhetorical point against Israel risks a loss of sympathy from the sane and rational people of this planet who abhor Hamas.

Personally I would say it's a war *in* Gaza, seems the most descriptively accurate to me.  But it's a free country, call it what you want.

I think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.

I think that is part of what JR is saying, if I am reading him correctly.  Those who want to make the strongest argument that Israel is not engaging in collective punishment contrary to international law will characterize this as a war between nation states, even though Gaza is neither a nation nor a state.

[Josquius]

People can use whatever phrasing they want but what matters is the reality and not the terms used to describe it.  The Israelis want to talk about war on Hamas because they want to emphasize that they are not against the civilian population of Gaza.  That's fine but that rhetorical effort only goes so far when there is a perception that Israel was not discriminating in dropping ordinance on Gazan apartment blocks early in the war. If Israel wants to be perceived as not being against the Gazans, it should act like it cares for their welfare.

For the Gazans and some of their boosters, talking about a war on or against Gaza feeds their desired narrative of Israel making war on a people.  But inherent in that description is identification with Hamas as the de facto government of the territory and the unquestioned leaders of that "side" in the war.  And so making the rhetorical point against Israel risks a loss of sympathy from the sane and rational people of this planet who abhor Hamas.

Personally I would say it's a war *in* Gaza, seems the most descriptively accurate to me.  But it's a free country, call it what you want.

I think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.

I think that is part of what JR is saying, if I am reading him correctly.  Those who want to make the strongest argument that Israel is not engaging in collective punishment contrary to international law will characterize this as a war mabetween nation states, even though Gaza is neither a nation nor a state.

Surely this would then make Israel - Gaza war the acceptable term?
Israel is at war with a small semi self governing ghetto and is going about it like it is engaged in a war with another state.
This doesn't put Israel in a great light.

[OttoVonBismarck]

People can use whatever phrasing they want but what matters is the reality and not the terms used to describe it.  The Israelis want to talk about war on Hamas because they want to emphasize that they are not against the civilian population of Gaza.  That's fine but that rhetorical effort only goes so far when there is a perception that Israel was not discriminating in dropping ordinance on Gazan apartment blocks early in the war. If Israel wants to be perceived as not being against the Gazans, it should act like it cares for their welfare.

My core point:

1. cc is a trolling idiot
2. Referring to it as a war on Gaza doesn't implicitly mean anything, it has no greater meaning, it isn't a positive or negative attempt at doing anything

[crazy canuck]

Ah the last refuge of the weaker argument.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Ah the last refuge of the weaker argument.

Yeah because this thread has been civil until now, and hasn't been exemplified by your bad behavior for months.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.

Yes that is another way to frame the issues rhetorically.
But incoherent in this context.  Israel doesn't need to frame the conflict as an inter-state war to take territory; it already has jurisdiction over the territory and has since '67.  No one who actually cares or whose mind hasn't already long been made up is going to think that this war gives any greater legitimacy or staying power to the Israeli occupation of territories occupied in the 67 war.

[Josquius]

I think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.

Yes that is another way to frame the issues rhetorically.
But incoherent in this context.  Israel doesn't need to frame the conflict as an inter-state war to take territory; it already has jurisdiction over the territory and has since '67.  No one who actually cares or whose mind hasn't already long been made up is going to think that this war gives any greater legitimacy or staying power to the Israeli occupation of territories occupied in the 67 war.

Surely that's exactly why they want to frame it as between states?
Bombing civilians you already have control over vs. Necessarily bombing enemy cities as part of an inter state war.

[The Minsky Moment]

Surely that's exactly why they want to frame it as between states?
Bombing civilians you already have control over vs. Necessarily bombing enemy cities as part of an inter state war.

It's all semantics.
Was Russia held to a higher standard of humanitarian conduct when it pummeled the Chechens then it is now in Ukraine?  I don't think so.

[grumbler]

Israel's position is there is no Palestine, I take it you agree with that?

That is not "Israel's position!"      That's like saying "Israel's position is that there is no Sinai."  Israel's position is that there is no nation-state called Palestine, that's all.