Hacker News Reader

Comment by ildjarn | Hacker News Reader

Is it appropriate to call this a war?

To me it seems more like a nation state fighting a terrorist group, with heavy civilian losses.

> fighting a terrorist group

If you occupy territories for decades, with notable differences in the rights of those occupied, you get an insurgency. To me, "terrorism" doesn't really describe the situation well. There have certainly been specific incidents that fit that label, but plenty that look a lot more like plain old rebellion. There have also been acts from the Israelis that could be looked at as terroristic, if you subscribe to the definition of using violence and intimidation for political gain.

Yeah, if both parties have declared war against each other, I think it's fair to call it a war.

Besides, does it matter what you call it? It's a war for all intents and purposes.

Every war/invasion/special military operation is seemingly a "The good guys (me) against the bad guys/terrorists (you)" conflict, and if that's not war, I'm not sure what is.

You cannot declare war on a territory you occupy and control. It is as if the United States declared war on Washington DC or any of their numerous prisons.

Israel neither occupied nor controlled the Gaza interior prior to Hamas' attack. They only controlled the border and what goes in and out of Gaza (some cross border tunnels excepted). Within Gaza, Hamas and the Palistinian National Authority ruled.

> They only controlled the border and what goes in and out of Gaza

"only" is used here to diminish the suffering of the Gazan people. Israel has had Gaza under a brutal blockade, across air, land and sea. They control everything that enters or leaves, and infamously were so cruel they counted the calories entering Gaza [0] [1]. Israel even claims control of the air over Gaza, and prevents civilians from collecting rainwater [2] [3] [4].

Israel has been enforcing collective punishment for decades - they want that land, and they want it only for themselves.

[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-counted-calorie-require...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-c...

[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occu...

[3] https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2016-06-22/ty-article/.premi...

[4] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/10/debunking-some-...

Damn, I didn't know that Israeli troops also controlled Egypt.

Israel certainly has agreements and treaties with Egypt that would make it difficult for Egypt not to do what the Israelis say regarding the border. Agreements and treaties made at a time and situation where Egypt didn't have much leverage.

Egypt is not free, for example, to allow aid in that Israel has not specifically approved.

> Egypt is not free, for example, to allow aid in that Israel has not specifically approved.

Yes it is. You can't just make stuff up and lie to people.

What makes you think that's okay? Because you feel it's 'for the right cause?

You can read quotes from Israeli officials about their approval process for the Rafah crossing. They've also bombed the crossing when they feel like the process isn't being followed.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egypts-sisi-accuse...

Aside from Israeli quotes, the above article includes Sisi's comments on the process.

If you have some credible source saying Egypt can get goods into Gaza without Israeli approval, I'd love to see it.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that statement, but I guess you're somehow implying it's not US-backed Israel's fault that they prevents legitimate goods (such as crayons, seeds, fishing rods etc) from entering Gaza... because Egypt?

Whataboutism aside, it's well known that US-backed Israel is indeed largely in control of what Egypt does and does not do in regard to Gaza.

It's not whataboutism!

If you said the only way to cross the Atlantic was by boat and I said you could fly that's not whataboutism

> it's well known that US-backed Israel is indeed largely in control of what Egypt does

No it's not. You can't just make stuff up

They did both... They control everything that goes in and out of gaza:

I quote from MSNBC "Despite pleas from the United Nations and human rights groups, Israel has maintained a land, air and sea blockade on Gaza since 2007 that has had a devastating effect on Palestinian civilians."

How do you rule if you control nothing? all the utilities are controlled by Israel. Travel, nope, controlled by Israel. Exports, nope, controlled by Israel. What are they ruling?

Israel created Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority - which itself is severely corrupt and complacent. People are seeking a better life. How else do you think Trump got elected? was he the better candidate? (and yes, I did just conflate Trump and Hamas)

I think it would be appropriate to put Hamas leadership, Trump, Biden and Bibi all in there along with a host of others. They're all produced by the same awful games that reward powerful, reprehensible men, promoting even those with majority disapproval to the top of the chain.

Technically I think Israel declared war on Hamas, not Palestine. Similarly, Palestine hasn't declared war on Israel, but Hamas has.

"Actions speak louder than words."

And then the same vagueness is the same tactics used by the most well funded, the most sophisticated propaganda machine ever - to make people think being against the actions of their current Israeli government, e.g. war crimes they're committing and have been committing, is anti-Semitism.

Would it not be a _civil_ war?

How is it a terrorist group? The nation state you are referring to is an occupying colonialist state. This same "state" is an apartheid state and not a democracy. You just have to scratch a little under the surface to see it. The nightly raids in the west bank. The concentration camp referred to as Gaza - where this "state" controls all utilities and imports. Hold anyone under your thumb for long enough and they will do their best to get out from under it. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction (Newton's Law of Motion seems to aptly fit)

Slaughtering a bunch of dancers at a festival seems congruent with terrorism to me.

Your argument seems to be: it's okay to do terrorist things if someone makes you. But that's still terrorism.

> Slaughtering a bunch of dancers at a festival seems congruent with terrorism to me.

There's evidence many of them were killed by friendly fire, to avoid capture and the need for hostage swaps. See:

https://thecradle.co/articles-id/18526

https://www.oct7factcheck.com/oct7factcheck/Friendly-fire-Is...

https://w.ynet.co.il/yediot/7-days/time-of-darkness

I recall seeing this shortly after Oct 7; though at that time it was difficult to distinguish whether it was propaganda.

I think the Hannibal Directive is not great, but at the same time the Israelis wouldn't have committed those acts had the terrorists not crossed into Isreal intending to do terrorist things.

It's terrorism whether you invade to kidnapp civilians or to murder them, and they're was plenty of civilian murdering happening that day as well.

Even if Isreal goaded them into doing it to justify genocide, it's still Hamas who decided to do the terrorism.

would special military operation be a better term?

How about massacre and genocide? they seem far more appropriate to a one sided military operation.

i think this was likely a reference to another contemporary conflict

Reply on news.ycombinator.com