[GK3]

An all-out Hezbollah attack, probably with West Bank uprisings, could be very dangerous if timed when the IDF was bogged down in Gaza.  But I would have to ask for what strategic purpose?  Iran is likely to get what it wants even if the war does not expand.

Iran may believe it can compel Israel to seek terms with Hamas. It would be a big gamble, because Hezbollah may be permanently crippled if it doesn't work, but if Israel has to negotiate, it will make Iran much stronger politically with everybody in the middle east. It could also be that Iran hopes it can force the US to intervene directly. This is a much more dangerous course of action (for many reasons), but if it happens it will definitely cause a major breakdown in US political influence with any Muslim countries in the middle east. It could put the US in a "damned if you do,  damned if you don't" situation. Our domestic political situation is such that we really, really don't want to face such a choice.

Of course, my colleagues in I.R. think strategically and look for the reasons behind seemingly irrational actions.  I supposed there is a chance that the only reason for any of this is just hatred, revenge, and mayhem.  If so, events are even harder to predict.  But it seems awfully well coordinated and resourced.

It does indeed. Additionally, I don't believe the benefit/cost ratio to Iran justifies destroying their proxy in Gaza to prevent an Israel/Saudi agreement. Given the Saudi's absolute monarchy, they don't have to keep their word on anything. Their "alliance" with Israel will be one of convenience, not conviction. I can't imagine Iran is playing for those relatively low stakes. Of course, as you point out, it doesn't have to be "rational". Hamas may have just done it because they could with no real strategic aim.

We have no business getting any more involved in this mess than we already are.  Obviously The Shin Bet was caught napping much like we were prior to 9/11.  If you really want to try and get a handle on this mess you have to go back to the years immediately after WW 2, and 1947 and the the United Nations resolution 181.
I am sure Iran has its hand in this, but at this point I have seen nothing factual to support this.  Regardless of whose side you are on in this situation, you cannot ignore the actions of the current Israeli government in recent months in terms of what they have allowed or encouraged.  It is at this point a major problem for our government going forward.

[GK3]

An all-out Hezbollah attack, probably with West Bank uprisings, could be very dangerous if timed when the IDF was bogged down in Gaza.  But I would have to ask for what strategic purpose?  Iran is likely to get what it wants even if the war does not expand.

Iran may believe it can compel Israel to seek terms with Hamas. It would be a big gamble, because Hezbollah may be permanently crippled if it doesn't work, but if Israel has to negotiate, it will make Iran much stronger politically with everybody in the middle east. It could also be that Iran hopes it can force the US to intervene directly. This is a much more dangerous course of action (for many reasons), but if it happens it will definitely cause a major breakdown in US political influence with any Muslim countries in the middle east. It could put the US in a "damned if you do,  damned if you don't" situation. Our domestic political situation is such that we really, really don't want to face such a choice.

Of course, my colleagues in I.R. think strategically and look for the reasons behind seemingly irrational actions.  I supposed there is a chance that the only reason for any of this is just hatred, revenge, and mayhem.  If so, events are even harder to predict.  But it seems awfully well coordinated and resourced.

It does indeed. Additionally, I don't believe the benefit/cost ratio to Iran justifies destroying their proxy in Gaza to prevent an Israel/Saudi agreement. Given the Saudi's absolute monarchy, they don't have to keep their word on anything. Their "alliance" with Israel will be one of convenience, not conviction. I can't imagine Iran is playing for those relatively low stakes. Of course, as you point out, it doesn't have to be "rational". Hamas may have just done it because they could with no real strategic aim.

We have no business getting any more involved in this mess than we already are.  Obviously The Shin Bet was caught napping much like we were prior to 9/11.  If you really want to try and get a handle on this mess you have to go back to the years immediately after WW 2, and 1947 and the the United Nations resolution 181.
I am sure Iran has its hand in this, but at this point I have seen nothing factual to support this.  Regardless of whose side you are on in this situation, you cannot ignore the actions of the current Israeli government in recent months in terms of what they have allowed or encouraged.  It is at this point a major problem for our government going forward.

[82 Card]

For a little context, some UN data on casualties since 2008:
https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties

[82 Card]

For a little context, some UN data on casualties since 2008:
https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties

[cardcrimson]

Regardless of whose side you are on in this situation, you cannot ignore the actions of the current Israeli government in recent months in terms of what they have allowed or encouraged.  It is at this point a major problem for our government going forward.

Please explain. I'm curious what the Israeli government did to encourage the slaughter of attendees of a music festival and the hostage taking of kids, women, and others. Of course there have been reports of other unspeakable actions by those from Gaza, as well. How did the government of Israel bring it upon themselves due to their actions in recent months?

[cardcrimson]

Regardless of whose side you are on in this situation, you cannot ignore the actions of the current Israeli government in recent months in terms of what they have allowed or encouraged.  It is at this point a major problem for our government going forward.

Please explain. I'm curious what the Israeli government did to encourage the slaughter of attendees of a music festival and the hostage taking of kids, women, and others. Of course there have been reports of other unspeakable actions by those from Gaza, as well. How did the government of Israel bring it upon themselves due to their actions in recent months?

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17119...45757?s=20

Very important development if it happens. Egypt has thus far kept their borders closed, and as all the land borders with Israel are closed, Palestinians really have nowhere safe to go to avoid Israeli bombs. The IDF has not been really subtle in their public messaging that they are expecting and tolerating lots of civilian casualties.

Agree it is important, as getting civilians out is indeed a goal. I am not sure where in Egypt they can go however. It would be lots of people. I am also pretty sure Israel will want some assurance that Hamas fighters won't be among the people evacuated. Israel would probably still support an evacuation. An "empty" Gaza is what they want. The real trick would come when people are allowed to return. At that point, making sure Hamas is not among those returning will be a BIG issue. 

Equally important at present is that Egypt NOT allow military supplies to enter Gaza from Egypt. Right now, Egypt is at least ostensibly doing this. If that situation changes things could get uglier than they already are. How well Egypt will stand up to pressure from "the street" remains to be seen.

The one, possibly two, carrier groups going to the Eastern Med are clearly meant to try and dissuade other regional actors from getting involved.

Probably so, but it is unclear what the other "regional actors" would do. Syria is in such bad shape it really can't do much, and Iraq is in a similar state. It is unclear to me that the carrier air wings are going to slow down Hezbollah any, because that would require direct military intervention by the US in the conflict. Iran might like that just fine. Iran itself will only act via proxy forces so it will not be at risk (and the 5th fleet is who Iran would deal directly with anyway). IMO this deployment is a necessary "showing of concern" but it's military effect is very questionable.

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17119...45757?s=20

Very important development if it happens. Egypt has thus far kept their borders closed, and as all the land borders with Israel are closed, Palestinians really have nowhere safe to go to avoid Israeli bombs. The IDF has not been really subtle in their public messaging that they are expecting and tolerating lots of civilian casualties.

Agree it is important, as getting civilians out is indeed a goal. I am not sure where in Egypt they can go however. It would be lots of people. I am also pretty sure Israel will want some assurance that Hamas fighters won't be among the people evacuated. Israel would probably still support an evacuation. An "empty" Gaza is what they want. The real trick would come when people are allowed to return. At that point, making sure Hamas is not among those returning will be a BIG issue. 

Equally important at present is that Egypt NOT allow military supplies to enter Gaza from Egypt. Right now, Egypt is at least ostensibly doing this. If that situation changes things could get uglier than they already are. How well Egypt will stand up to pressure from "the street" remains to be seen.

The one, possibly two, carrier groups going to the Eastern Med are clearly meant to try and dissuade other regional actors from getting involved.

Probably so, but it is unclear what the other "regional actors" would do. Syria is in such bad shape it really can't do much, and Iraq is in a similar state. It is unclear to me that the carrier air wings are going to slow down Hezbollah any, because that would require direct military intervention by the US in the conflict. Iran might like that just fine. Iran itself will only act via proxy forces so it will not be at risk (and the 5th fleet is who Iran would deal directly with anyway). IMO this deployment is a necessary "showing of concern" but it's military effect is very questionable.

[TrumpCard]

For a little context, some UN data on casualties since 2008:
https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties

Rather than providing context, this data -- generated by an organization that advertises support for Palestinians on its website -- removes context from hundreds of separate incidents that occurred over the last 14 years.

[TrumpCard]

For a little context, some UN data on casualties since 2008:
https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties

Rather than providing context, this data -- generated by an organization that advertises support for Palestinians on its website -- removes context from hundreds of separate incidents that occurred over the last 14 years.

[BigJohn043]

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17119...45757?s=20

Very important development if it happens. Egypt has thus far kept their borders closed, and as all the land borders with Israel are closed, Palestinians really have nowhere safe to go to avoid Israeli bombs. The IDF has not been really subtle in their public messaging that they are expecting and tolerating lots of civilian casualties.

Agree it is important, as getting civilians out is indeed a goal. I am not sure where in Egypt they can go however. It would be lots of people. I am also pretty sure Israel will want some assurance that Hamas fighters won't be among the people evacuated. Israel would probably still support an evacuation. An "empty" Gaza is what they want. The real trick would come when people are allowed to return. At that point, making sure Hamas is not among those returning will be a BIG issue. 

Equally important at present is that Egypt NOT allow military supplies to enter Gaza from Egypt. Right now, Egypt is at least ostensibly doing this. If that situation changes things could get uglier than they already are. How well Egypt will stand up to pressure from "the street" remains to be seen.

The one, possibly two, carrier groups going to the Eastern Med are clearly meant to try and dissuade other regional actors from getting involved.

Probably so, but it is unclear what the other "regional actors" would do. Syria is in such bad shape it really can't do much, and Iraq is in a similar state. It is unclear to me that the carrier air wings are going to slow down Hezbollah any, because that would require direct military intervention by the US in the conflict. Iran might like that just fine. Iran itself will only act via proxy forces so it will not be at risk (and the 5th fleet is who Iran would deal directly with anyway). IMO this deployment is a necessary "showing of concern" but it's military effect is very questionable.

I think this is a two step process.

First, there needs to be a way to evacuate civilians from Gaza.  We need to give people a chance to simply leave.  We need to pressure the Arab states to give them a place to go.  We need to help.

Second, Israel is going to flatten Gaza.  That is just the reality.  They really have no other choice.

This is extremely sad.  But not sure what else works....

[BigJohn043]

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17119...45757?s=20

Very important development if it happens. Egypt has thus far kept their borders closed, and as all the land borders with Israel are closed, Palestinians really have nowhere safe to go to avoid Israeli bombs. The IDF has not been really subtle in their public messaging that they are expecting and tolerating lots of civilian casualties.

Agree it is important, as getting civilians out is indeed a goal. I am not sure where in Egypt they can go however. It would be lots of people. I am also pretty sure Israel will want some assurance that Hamas fighters won't be among the people evacuated. Israel would probably still support an evacuation. An "empty" Gaza is what they want. The real trick would come when people are allowed to return. At that point, making sure Hamas is not among those returning will be a BIG issue. 

Equally important at present is that Egypt NOT allow military supplies to enter Gaza from Egypt. Right now, Egypt is at least ostensibly doing this. If that situation changes things could get uglier than they already are. How well Egypt will stand up to pressure from "the street" remains to be seen.

The one, possibly two, carrier groups going to the Eastern Med are clearly meant to try and dissuade other regional actors from getting involved.

Probably so, but it is unclear what the other "regional actors" would do. Syria is in such bad shape it really can't do much, and Iraq is in a similar state. It is unclear to me that the carrier air wings are going to slow down Hezbollah any, because that would require direct military intervention by the US in the conflict. Iran might like that just fine. Iran itself will only act via proxy forces so it will not be at risk (and the 5th fleet is who Iran would deal directly with anyway). IMO this deployment is a necessary "showing of concern" but it's military effect is very questionable.

I think this is a two step process.

First, there needs to be a way to evacuate civilians from Gaza.  We need to give people a chance to simply leave.  We need to pressure the Arab states to give them a place to go.  We need to help.

Second, Israel is going to flatten Gaza.  That is just the reality.  They really have no other choice.

This is extremely sad.  But not sure what else works....

[TrumpCard]

Politics. Hamas is essentially a creation of Israel and the United States, intended to wrest power from Yasser Arafat and the PLO. Israel provided financial and military support to Sheikh Yassin, who was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. An unintended consequence was that when Palestinians were able to choose their own leaders, they elected Hamas. This was a big surprise: an "oh, sh**" moment.

Palestinians have been hell bent on the destruction of Israel since well before Israel ever declared independence.  They fought against Israeli independence and in every war against Israel since that time.  The Palestinians have supported terrorist organizations from the time of Israel's inception. The PLO, which seems like a group of angels compared to Hamas, hijacked airplanes full of civilians.  Yassin's existence deserves maybe a line in the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  To the extent he'd be mentioned, it would be for the fact that Israel assassinated him decades ago after multiple attempts on his life, which were after he spent years in an Israeli prison.  The paragraph about Yassin above is fiction.

Way forward: only one path can lead to peace, and that is an ironclad resort to first principles: (i) no one may ever initiate the use of force against another and (ii) everyone should butt out except for the peoples of Israel and Palestine. Others have to stop using both countries as proxies. There is no outside solution. Aggression will solve nothing. Leaving the two antagonists alone will force them to negotiate and work out a peaceful relationship that can last for years.

First, we should start a campfire and sing Kumbaya.

[TrumpCard]

Politics. Hamas is essentially a creation of Israel and the United States, intended to wrest power from Yasser Arafat and the PLO. Israel provided financial and military support to Sheikh Yassin, who was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. An unintended consequence was that when Palestinians were able to choose their own leaders, they elected Hamas. This was a big surprise: an "oh, sh**" moment.

Palestinians have been hell bent on the destruction of Israel since well before Israel ever declared independence.  They fought against Israeli independence and in every war against Israel since that time.  The Palestinians have supported terrorist organizations from the time of Israel's inception. The PLO, which seems like a group of angels compared to Hamas, hijacked airplanes full of civilians.  Yassin's existence deserves maybe a line in the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  To the extent he'd be mentioned, it would be for the fact that Israel assassinated him decades ago after multiple attempts on his life, which were after he spent years in an Israeli prison.  The paragraph about Yassin above is fiction.

Way forward: only one path can lead to peace, and that is an ironclad resort to first principles: (i) no one may ever initiate the use of force against another and (ii) everyone should butt out except for the peoples of Israel and Palestine. Others have to stop using both countries as proxies. There is no outside solution. Aggression will solve nothing. Leaving the two antagonists alone will force them to negotiate and work out a peaceful relationship that can last for years.

First, we should start a campfire and sing Kumbaya.

[82 Card]

For a little context, some UN data on casualties since 2008:
https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties

Rather than providing context, this data -- generated by an organization that advertises support for Palestinians on its website -- removes context from hundreds of separate incidents that occurred over the last 14 years.

So providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians makes them suspect. I suppose you feel the same way about Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross. Insisting on counting incident by incident is an attempt to bury the killing in an impossible task. A large number of the deaths are not attributed to any major shooting matches. It also ignores the numerous times Israeli government officials have vowed to kill many times as many Palestinians as Israelis that are killed. That doesn't justify Hamas's actions. However, Israeli insistence on upping the brutality many times over is a sure way to guarantee that there will never be peace. There needs to be some effort to understand the Palestinian perspective. All the stories now being told by the Israelis have been occurring over and over to Palestinians, most of whom have no choice but to live in Gaza.

[82 Card]

For a little context, some UN data on casualties since 2008:
https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties

Rather than providing context, this data -- generated by an organization that advertises support for Palestinians on its website -- removes context from hundreds of separate incidents that occurred over the last 14 years.

So providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians makes them suspect. I suppose you feel the same way about Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross. Insisting on counting incident by incident is an attempt to bury the killing in an impossible task. A large number of the deaths are not attributed to any major shooting matches. It also ignores the numerous times Israeli government officials have vowed to kill many times as many Palestinians as Israelis that are killed. That doesn't justify Hamas's actions. However, Israeli insistence on upping the brutality many times over is a sure way to guarantee that there will never be peace. There needs to be some effort to understand the Palestinian perspective. All the stories now being told by the Israelis have been occurring over and over to Palestinians, most of whom have no choice but to live in Gaza.

[TrumpCard]

I’ve met with Palestinian government officials and militants, and I’ve participated in dialogue groups. I do have empathy for Palestinian civilians who are the victims of their own leaders. 

All I’m saying that this pro-Palestinian site strips the context from the data in a way that misleads readers. Look at just the number of Palestinians civilians who died and you might think Israel is trying to kill civilians. Take each incident as an event with factual context and you realize that Israel is defending against an onslaught of terrorism, and Palestinian civilians often die because terrorists use civilians as human shields.

[TrumpCard]

I’ve met with Palestinian government officials and militants, and I’ve participated in dialogue groups. I do have empathy for Palestinian civilians who are the victims of their own leaders. 

All I’m saying that this pro-Palestinian site strips the context from the data in a way that misleads readers. Look at just the number of Palestinians civilians who died and you might think Israel is trying to kill civilians. Take each incident as an event with factual context and you realize that Israel is defending against an onslaught of terrorism, and Palestinian civilians often die because terrorists use civilians as human shields.

[OutsiderFan]

The U.S. working with Egypt to provide safe harbor for refugees from Gaza is an objective that makes sense in the moment. At this point, Israel would probably nuke Gaza if it could, but won't for mostly the same reasons Russia won't use them on Ukraine.

In theory, evacuate all who aren't terrorists so IDF can raze and seize Gaza with conventional munitions, is a path forward for Israel, but what, exactly is that going to solve or resolve? They might kill thousands of trouble makers in the near term, but the cost of the destruction is staggering, plus there are many more where they came from, and doing so might get them sympathizers to replace or add to the numbers of militants.

I agree with branner. More violence, slaughter, and destruction isn't going to resolve any core issue and will just add more tangles to the mess that must ultimately be untangled. The United States, Turkey, China, India, and Egypt need to all work together to figure out a way forward, that does what branner's other suggestion is, to stop other countries interfering with the region and let the people there figure things out on their own without outside influence. China and India can put pressure on Russia who can then pressure Iran, for example. And the U.S. can pull its military support as well so it won't be interfering either. I know it sounds crazy, but this is the best path forward. Let them kill each other until one side wipes out the other or they both decide the fight is no longer worth it and they try to find common ground to co-exist. 

I understand the U.S. wants to support the only democracy in the region militarily, but it sure doesn't look like the strategy of arming Israel to the teeth is working very well in the end. It's not like arming Ukraine to stop an aggressor country so it won't do the same to others.

Oppressing people is never the answer. U.S. support of Israel has unbalanced the playing field, allowed it to be oppressors, and made people feel they have no choice to address their grievances other than with the barbaric acts Hamas has engaged in this week. I mean we can rightfully condemn the atrocities, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that people willing to go so far or supporting it are expressing something is deeply unacceptable to them that we must acknowledge and treat as legitimate concern that must be addressed.

[OutsiderFan]

The U.S. working with Egypt to provide safe harbor for refugees from Gaza is an objective that makes sense in the moment. At this point, Israel would probably nuke Gaza if it could, but won't for mostly the same reasons Russia won't use them on Ukraine.

In theory, evacuate all who aren't terrorists so IDF can raze and seize Gaza with conventional munitions, is a path forward for Israel, but what, exactly is that going to solve or resolve? They might kill thousands of trouble makers in the near term, but the cost of the destruction is staggering, plus there are many more where they came from, and doing so might get them sympathizers to replace or add to the numbers of militants.

I agree with branner. More violence, slaughter, and destruction isn't going to resolve any core issue and will just add more tangles to the mess that must ultimately be untangled. The United States, Turkey, China, India, and Egypt need to all work together to figure out a way forward, that does what branner's other suggestion is, to stop other countries interfering with the region and let the people there figure things out on their own without outside influence. China and India can put pressure on Russia who can then pressure Iran, for example. And the U.S. can pull its military support as well so it won't be interfering either. I know it sounds crazy, but this is the best path forward. Let them kill each other until one side wipes out the other or they both decide the fight is no longer worth it and they try to find common ground to co-exist. 

I understand the U.S. wants to support the only democracy in the region militarily, but it sure doesn't look like the strategy of arming Israel to the teeth is working very well in the end. It's not like arming Ukraine to stop an aggressor country so it won't do the same to others.

Oppressing people is never the answer. U.S. support of Israel has unbalanced the playing field, allowed it to be oppressors, and made people feel they have no choice to address their grievances other than with the barbaric acts Hamas has engaged in this week. I mean we can rightfully condemn the atrocities, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that people willing to go so far or supporting it are expressing something is deeply unacceptable to them that we must acknowledge and treat as legitimate concern that must be addressed.

[TonyLima]

Admins, please take a close look at this thread. Veering in a bad direction. Thanks.

[TonyLima]

Admins, please take a close look at this thread. Veering in a bad direction. Thanks.

[bl82]

What Tony said. Not sure this thread is going to be viable long-term, sadly.

[bl82]

What Tony said. Not sure this thread is going to be viable long-term, sadly.

[TriangleTree]

FWIW, I highly value the different perspectives and would much prefer that the discussion remains civil so that it may continue. It is an immensely sensitive issue, so it’s difficult to see how it may not feel personal, but I would urge for those that participate to try to not assume negative intent and to be very conscious of how their comments may be perceived. 


This is not nearly as clear cut as the Russia Ukraine discussion where there is near universal alignment here on the desired outcome (if not necessarily on how to achieve it). That is an excellent forum with very knowledgeable and informed perspectives which I know many of us appreciate, so it would be great If we could have the same  for this topic as well. 

One can hope

[TriangleTree]

FWIW, I highly value the different perspectives and would much prefer that the discussion remains civil so that it may continue. It is an immensely sensitive issue, so it’s difficult to see how it may not feel personal, but I would urge for those that participate to try to not assume negative intent and to be very conscious of how their comments may be perceived. 


This is not nearly as clear cut as the Russia Ukraine discussion where there is near universal alignment here on the desired outcome (if not necessarily on how to achieve it). That is an excellent forum with very knowledgeable and informed perspectives which I know many of us appreciate, so it would be great If we could have the same  for this topic as well. 

One can hope

[Bampa]

Admins, please take a close look at this thread. Veering in a bad direction. Thanks.

   +1000

[Bampa]

Admins, please take a close look at this thread. Veering in a bad direction. Thanks.

   +1000

[g1313]

If this thread stays open, I would also strongly encourage any posters to keep in mind that someone reading the thread may have friends and family who are directly impacted by recent events, and it may not be the time to discuss in a completely analytical impartial way.

[g1313]

If this thread stays open, I would also strongly encourage any posters to keep in mind that someone reading the thread may have friends and family who are directly impacted by recent events, and it may not be the time to discuss in a completely analytical impartial way.

[81alum]

An all-out Hezbollah attack, probably with West Bank uprisings, could be very dangerous if timed when the IDF was bogged down in Gaza.  But I would have to ask for what strategic purpose?  Iran is likely to get what it wants even if the war does not expand.

Iran may believe it can compel Israel to seek terms with Hamas. It would be a big gamble, because Hezbollah may be permanently crippled if it doesn't work, but if Israel has to negotiate, it will make Iran much stronger politically with everybody in the middle east. It could also be that Iran hopes it can force the US to intervene directly. This is a much more dangerous course of action (for many reasons), but if it happens it will definitely cause a major breakdown in US political influence with any Muslim countries in the middle east. It could put the US in a "damned if you do,  damned if you don't" situation. Our domestic political situation is such that we really, really don't want to face such a choice.

Of course, my colleagues in I.R. think strategically and look for the reasons behind seemingly irrational actions.  I supposed there is a chance that the only reason for any of this is just hatred, revenge, and mayhem.  If so, events are even harder to predict.  But it seems awfully well coordinated and resourced.

It does indeed. Additionally, I don't believe the benefit/cost ratio to Iran justifies destroying their proxy in Gaza to prevent an Israel/Saudi agreement. Given the Saudi's absolute monarchy, they don't have to keep their word on anything. Their "alliance" with Israel will be one of convenience, not conviction. I can't imagine Iran is playing for those relatively low stakes. Of course, as you point out, it doesn't have to be "rational". Hamas may have just done it because they could with no real strategic aim.

Goose, the Iran connection is indeed controversial in this case.  A second colleague I spoke with today minimized it on the basis of the timelines involved.  He pointed out that this operation must have been planned for far longer than news of the potential breakthrough in Saudi/Israeli relations.

On the other hand, Dennis Ross, one of the most knowledgeable diplomats on this region (he negotiated the Oslo accords) had this to say:

I think the main reason this is happening now is because of the prospect of the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli deal. Hamas understands this is a brobdingnagian transformative event, and they are trying to create a circumstance where it will be difficult for Saudi Arabia to do it right.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...k-00120498

He does not explain it sufficiently in that article, but he has also been giving cable interviews which you can probably find on the internet.  His argument is that if Saudi Arabia normalizes relations with Israel, and the nation with the two holiest sites in Islam makes peace with Israel, it will change the conflict that Hamas is stoking from an existential one to a national one--one in which compromise is possible and one in which fanaticism is lessened.  Hamas certainly does not desire that.

I'm not sure what to believe and have never been happier that I pursued a different branch of my discipline!  But while the scholarly community is somewhat divided so far, the theory that this attack--its timing, ferocity, and barbarity--serves the strategic interest of Iran is not far fetched, especially when you consider that the strategic interests of Hamas may be the same. 

Ross also blames Hamas for doing something similar to blow up (literally) the peace process in 1996 when Shimon Peres was implementing Oslo after the assassination of Rabin.  Hamas bombed two buses in Jerusalem, killing 45, and this successfully undermined the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and ended the momentum of Oslo.  Prior to the bombings most Israelis supported moving ahead; after the bombings this was reversed.  And 1996 proved to be the last truly hopeful year for the peace process. 

https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/s...833234.pdf

So Hamas has shown in the past that it times its terrorism strategically to undermine diplomatic events that it thinks are moving against its interests, and it is reasonable to think that this act also fits the pattern.  Of course, this is likely not all there is to the story.

[81alum]

An all-out Hezbollah attack, probably with West Bank uprisings, could be very dangerous if timed when the IDF was bogged down in Gaza.  But I would have to ask for what strategic purpose?  Iran is likely to get what it wants even if the war does not expand.

Iran may believe it can compel Israel to seek terms with Hamas. It would be a big gamble, because Hezbollah may be permanently crippled if it doesn't work, but if Israel has to negotiate, it will make Iran much stronger politically with everybody in the middle east. It could also be that Iran hopes it can force the US to intervene directly. This is a much more dangerous course of action (for many reasons), but if it happens it will definitely cause a major breakdown in US political influence with any Muslim countries in the middle east. It could put the US in a "damned if you do,  damned if you don't" situation. Our domestic political situation is such that we really, really don't want to face such a choice.

Of course, my colleagues in I.R. think strategically and look for the reasons behind seemingly irrational actions.  I supposed there is a chance that the only reason for any of this is just hatred, revenge, and mayhem.  If so, events are even harder to predict.  But it seems awfully well coordinated and resourced.

It does indeed. Additionally, I don't believe the benefit/cost ratio to Iran justifies destroying their proxy in Gaza to prevent an Israel/Saudi agreement. Given the Saudi's absolute monarchy, they don't have to keep their word on anything. Their "alliance" with Israel will be one of convenience, not conviction. I can't imagine Iran is playing for those relatively low stakes. Of course, as you point out, it doesn't have to be "rational". Hamas may have just done it because they could with no real strategic aim.

Goose, the Iran connection is indeed controversial in this case.  A second colleague I spoke with today minimized it on the basis of the timelines involved.  He pointed out that this operation must have been planned for far longer than news of the potential breakthrough in Saudi/Israeli relations.

On the other hand, Dennis Ross, one of the most knowledgeable diplomats on this region (he negotiated the Oslo accords) had this to say:

I think the main reason this is happening now is because of the prospect of the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli deal. Hamas understands this is a brobdingnagian transformative event, and they are trying to create a circumstance where it will be difficult for Saudi Arabia to do it right.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...k-00120498

He does not explain it sufficiently in that article, but he has also been giving cable interviews which you can probably find on the internet.  His argument is that if Saudi Arabia normalizes relations with Israel, and the nation with the two holiest sites in Islam makes peace with Israel, it will change the conflict that Hamas is stoking from an existential one to a national one--one in which compromise is possible and one in which fanaticism is lessened.  Hamas certainly does not desire that.

I'm not sure what to believe and have never been happier that I pursued a different branch of my discipline!  But while the scholarly community is somewhat divided so far, the theory that this attack--its timing, ferocity, and barbarity--serves the strategic interest of Iran is not far fetched, especially when you consider that the strategic interests of Hamas may be the same. 

Ross also blames Hamas for doing something similar to blow up (literally) the peace process in 1996 when Shimon Peres was implementing Oslo after the assassination of Rabin.  Hamas bombed two buses in Jerusalem, killing 45, and this successfully undermined the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and ended the momentum of Oslo.  Prior to the bombings most Israelis supported moving ahead; after the bombings this was reversed.  And 1996 proved to be the last truly hopeful year for the peace process. 

https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/s...833234.pdf

So Hamas has shown in the past that it times its terrorism strategically to undermine diplomatic events that it thinks are moving against its interests, and it is reasonable to think that this act also fits the pattern.  Of course, this is likely not all there is to the story.

[Goose]

He does not explain it sufficiently in that article, but he has also been giving cable interviews which you can probably find on the internet.  His argument is that if Saudi Arabia normalizes relations with Israel, and the nation with the two holiest sites in Islam makes peace with Israel, it will change the conflict that Hamas is stoking from an existential one to a national one--one in which compromise is possible and one in which fanaticism is lessened.  Hamas certainly does not desire that.

I am not sure that I understand the reasoning here. There is a religious conflict and "national" one. Of the two, I would argue that the "national" one is regarded by the Palestinians as the "existential" one.  The Palestinians could have arguably settled in Jordan back when the PLO moved there. They could have practiced their religion and become economically "successful". That was not acceptable because the Palestinians simply insist on returning to and governing in "Palestine".

Saudi Arabia normalizing relations with Israel does remove a lot of the religious argument that Muslim states should not and must not recognize Israel because their religion forbids such tolerance. However, it more importantly removes Saudi Arabia from the set of nations that supports the Palestinians returning to and ruling in Palestine as an unconditional goal. Both are indeed blows to Hamas, but it is the latter, not the former, that IMO is the more serious. Egypt (and Jordan, sort of) have already put paid to the idea that Muslim states must not recognize Israel. The Saudi's as the keepers of the holy places do carry more weight in that area, but conceptually the issue is already settled. OTOH, Saudi money can and has (at least to some degree) helped support the Palestinian cause of destroying Israel. Losing that support and more importantly the possibility of much larger support in the future is IMO a much greater blow to Hamas than the "religious" aspect. Making a "forever war" against Israel clearly less practical is a "existential threat" to Hamas.

I'm not sure what to believe and have never been happier that I pursued a different branch of my discipline!  But while the scholarly community is somewhat divided so far, the theory that this attack--its timing, ferocity, and barbarity--serves the strategic interest of Iran is not far fetched, especially when you consider that the strategic interests of Hamas may be the same. 

Ross also blames Hamas for doing something similar to blow up (literally) the peace process in 1996 when Shimon Peres was implementing Oslo after the assassination of Rabin.  Hamas bombed two buses in Jerusalem, killing 45, and this successfully undermined the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and ended the momentum of Oslo.  Prior to the bombings most Israelis supported moving ahead; after the bombings this was reversed.  And 1996 proved to be the last truly hopeful year for the peace process. 

https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/s...833234.pdf

So Hamas has shown in the past that it times its terrorism strategically to undermine diplomatic events that it thinks are moving against its interests, and it is reasonable to think that this act also fits the pattern.  Of course, this is likely not all there is to the story.

I totally agree it is probable that Hamas was motivated by an attempt to prevent an Israel-Saudi agreement. I am less sure Iran is directly involved in this action. Iran may believe the Saudi's are leaving the role of Muslim leadership to Iran by "selling out". IMO an operation lead by Iran would certainly involve Hezbollah. Attacking only in the south risks destroying Hamas for a minimal gain. As you point out, Hamas as a lot to lose from a Saudi-Israel agreement. IMO Hamas is perfectly capable of acting to prevent that without Iran leading the way.

[Goose]

He does not explain it sufficiently in that article, but he has also been giving cable interviews which you can probably find on the internet.  His argument is that if Saudi Arabia normalizes relations with Israel, and the nation with the two holiest sites in Islam makes peace with Israel, it will change the conflict that Hamas is stoking from an existential one to a national one--one in which compromise is possible and one in which fanaticism is lessened.  Hamas certainly does not desire that.

I am not sure that I understand the reasoning here. There is a religious conflict and "national" one. Of the two, I would argue that the "national" one is regarded by the Palestinians as the "existential" one.  The Palestinians could have arguably settled in Jordan back when the PLO moved there. They could have practiced their religion and become economically "successful". That was not acceptable because the Palestinians simply insist on returning to and governing in "Palestine".

Saudi Arabia normalizing relations with Israel does remove a lot of the religious argument that Muslim states should not and must not recognize Israel because their religion forbids such tolerance. However, it more importantly removes Saudi Arabia from the set of nations that supports the Palestinians returning to and ruling in Palestine as an unconditional goal. Both are indeed blows to Hamas, but it is the latter, not the former, that IMO is the more serious. Egypt (and Jordan, sort of) have already put paid to the idea that Muslim states must not recognize Israel. The Saudi's as the keepers of the holy places do carry more weight in that area, but conceptually the issue is already settled. OTOH, Saudi money can and has (at least to some degree) helped support the Palestinian cause of destroying Israel. Losing that support and more importantly the possibility of much larger support in the future is IMO a much greater blow to Hamas than the "religious" aspect. Making a "forever war" against Israel clearly less practical is a "existential threat" to Hamas.

I'm not sure what to believe and have never been happier that I pursued a different branch of my discipline!  But while the scholarly community is somewhat divided so far, the theory that this attack--its timing, ferocity, and barbarity--serves the strategic interest of Iran is not far fetched, especially when you consider that the strategic interests of Hamas may be the same. 

Ross also blames Hamas for doing something similar to blow up (literally) the peace process in 1996 when Shimon Peres was implementing Oslo after the assassination of Rabin.  Hamas bombed two buses in Jerusalem, killing 45, and this successfully undermined the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and ended the momentum of Oslo.  Prior to the bombings most Israelis supported moving ahead; after the bombings this was reversed.  And 1996 proved to be the last truly hopeful year for the peace process. 

https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/s...833234.pdf

So Hamas has shown in the past that it times its terrorism strategically to undermine diplomatic events that it thinks are moving against its interests, and it is reasonable to think that this act also fits the pattern.  Of course, this is likely not all there is to the story.

I totally agree it is probable that Hamas was motivated by an attempt to prevent an Israel-Saudi agreement. I am less sure Iran is directly involved in this action. Iran may believe the Saudi's are leaving the role of Muslim leadership to Iran by "selling out". IMO an operation lead by Iran would certainly involve Hezbollah. Attacking only in the south risks destroying Hamas for a minimal gain. As you point out, Hamas as a lot to lose from a Saudi-Israel agreement. IMO Hamas is perfectly capable of acting to prevent that without Iran leading the way.

[TrumpCard]

The Associated Press published this article, which purports to debunk false claims that have appeared on the interwebs:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-...bfb269258e

[TrumpCard]

The Associated Press published this article, which purports to debunk false claims that have appeared on the interwebs:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-...bfb269258e

[GK3]

The Associated Press published this article, which purports to debunk false claims that have appeared on the interwebs:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-...bfb269258e

Unfortunately, fake news is part of the world we live in at this point in time.  Whether this ever becomes a manageable issue remains to be seen.  Certain countries will probably be up to their eye balls in writing fake news but cutting of access to things like X and Face Book to keep fake news out of their countries to whatever extent is possible.

[GK3]

The Associated Press published this article, which purports to debunk false claims that have appeared on the interwebs:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-...bfb269258e

Unfortunately, fake news is part of the world we live in at this point in time.  Whether this ever becomes a manageable issue remains to be seen.  Certain countries will probably be up to their eye balls in writing fake news but cutting of access to things like X and Face Book to keep fake news out of their countries to whatever extent is possible.

[81alum]

I am not sure that I understand the reasoning here. There is a religious conflict and "national" one. Of the two, I would argue that the "national" one is regarded by the Palestinians as the "existential" one.  The Palestinians could have arguably settled in Jordan back when the PLO moved there. They could have practiced their religion and become economically "successful". That was not acceptable because the Palestinians simply insist on returning to and governing in "Palestine".

I'd urge you listen to him make his arguments as I may not be adequately explaining them, nor do I personally have the expertise to evaluate them.  But the respect both sides have given him in the past lends him substantial credibility.   

But here goes, so far as I understand him.  I think the distinction he describes is the difference between Hamas followers believing that any compromise with Israel is deeply repugnant to their religious ideology (existential with regard to their souls), vs. Fatah followers "merely" seeing a political/national contest, albeit a lopsided one.  He suggests that this has always been the main distinction between Hamas and Fatah, going back to the 1990s when Fatah embraced Oslo and Hamas sabotaged it by blowing up bus loads of Israeli citizens. 

Hamas is a Sunni organization and it motivates  ("brainwashes") its terrorists using (distorted) Sunni religious language.  But what if the followers of Hamas see the most important Sunni nation, in control of their holiest sites, shaking hands and making peace with Israel?  If Hamas loses a religious motivation for their struggle, how would they be any different from Fatah?  It might be existential then in another way--threatening the existence of their organization, since it would undermine their differencia specifica among Palestinian groups.

And that is the best I can do after reading a couple of articles and watching an interview.  Maybe we could get him to come to the Cardboard and explain his position!

[81alum]

I am not sure that I understand the reasoning here. There is a religious conflict and "national" one. Of the two, I would argue that the "national" one is regarded by the Palestinians as the "existential" one.  The Palestinians could have arguably settled in Jordan back when the PLO moved there. They could have practiced their religion and become economically "successful". That was not acceptable because the Palestinians simply insist on returning to and governing in "Palestine".

I'd urge you listen to him make his arguments as I may not be adequately explaining them, nor do I personally have the expertise to evaluate them.  But the respect both sides have given him in the past lends him substantial credibility.   

But here goes, so far as I understand him.  I think the distinction he describes is the difference between Hamas followers believing that any compromise with Israel is deeply repugnant to their religious ideology (existential with regard to their souls), vs. Fatah followers "merely" seeing a political/national contest, albeit a lopsided one.  He suggests that this has always been the main distinction between Hamas and Fatah, going back to the 1990s when Fatah embraced Oslo and Hamas sabotaged it by blowing up bus loads of Israeli citizens. 

Hamas is a Sunni organization and it motivates  ("brainwashes") its terrorists using (distorted) Sunni religious language.  But what if the followers of Hamas see the most important Sunni nation, in control of their holiest sites, shaking hands and making peace with Israel?  If Hamas loses a religious motivation for their struggle, how would they be any different from Fatah?  It might be existential then in another way--threatening the existence of their organization, since it would undermine their differencia specifica among Palestinian groups.

And that is the best I can do after reading a couple of articles and watching an interview.  Maybe we could get him to come to the Cardboard and explain his position!