I’m in the US.
I haven’t discerned a pattern, by the media, in the titling of the horror currently underway.
I’ve seen Al Jazeera use both phrasings. I haven’t determined that other media sites are hardlining their terminology either, but I notice the difference as I browse.
Maybe it doesn’t mean anything, but these days people seem extra sensitive about names.
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 combatants are the IDF and Hamas. The location is Gaza. But if the ones dying aren’t soldiers but rather ordinary civilians, and if those civilian deaths aren’t tragic accidents but rather the intended outcomes of the attacks, some might believe this isn’t a war between militaries. This is a slaughter of populations. This is terror. This is genocide.
Hamas attempted such an act on Israel. But right now, the IDF is bombing refugee camps, targeting ambulances, blocking humanitarian aid convoys, and murdering men, women, and children - civilians - by the literal thousands.
Israel-Hamas, Israel-Gaza, it’s all performative. You’re right. But there’s a lot of subtext behind each performance. Is this a war against a small terrorist cell, or an extermination of a territory and all those who call it home? I can’t speak to the motives of newscasters using either wording, but just like OP, I do wonder what they’re trying to convey.