Comment by JumpCrisscross

> What distinguishes a terrorist attack from a counter-offensive?

Objectives. Targeting military infrastructure and symbols of a regime can deplete martial capacity and domestic support. Targeting civilians pretty much always results in unifying the enemy—this goes back to Hitler trying to bomb Britain into submission from afar.

> that didn't start on October 7th, so if that's the case, why isn't Palestine getting everything they want

Huh? Nobody argued that everything except terrorism is a winning strategy.

> why aren't you arguing that Israel shouldn't expect to get anything out of their terrorist attacks against Palestine?

They’re the stronger military. Absent international law or pressure, might makes right.

> Last one is a rhetorical question

Literally answered it. If you’re saying you’ve presumed an answer and don’t wish to hear others, sure.

> Israel and the US have all the power therefore their actions are righteous and any sort of retribution is terrorism

You’re getting lost in your own analogies.

We can construct convincing moral models that indict both sides of this conflict because multiple actors have behaved abhorrently. (One or two have more capability and thus can act on their impulses more fully.) If you’re writing as a historian, sure, apportion blame.

If you’re thinking as a strategist, however, outcomes are what matter. And on an outcome basis, October 7 was strategically stupid (it could has been genius, but Hamas and PJ have no discipline), while the current ceasefire saves lives.