USA vs Taliban
Compared to
USA vs Afghanistan
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
86 points (90.6% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26280 readers
1358 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
/thread
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
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.
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:
whoever thinks Israel purposefully targets civilians...
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.
they currently are
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.
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:
- pretend nothing happened, let Hamas repeat such attacks and kill more civilians
- hide among civilians to force Israel to kill civilians if they want to target Hamas, which will (understandably) piss off just about anyone
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
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.
The first is ideologies, the second is location.
"Israel-Hamas War" vs "Israel-Gaza War"?
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