[cardbored]

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.

Yet, whenever war breaks out, even if in a small area, the risks of escalation and a widening of the conflict are real. Without us speaking with one another, even sharing disparate views, while the conflict is under way, we may increase those risks. We all have a stake in what our governments do and in preventing the spread of aggression. I would rather entertain an attempt to persuade me with words than have an outcome I don't want forced down my throat.

[cardbored]

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.

Yet, whenever war breaks out, even if in a small area, the risks of escalation and a widening of the conflict are real. Without us speaking with one another, even sharing disparate views, while the conflict is under way, we may increase those risks. We all have a stake in what our governments do and in preventing the spread of aggression. I would rather entertain an attempt to persuade me with words than have an outcome I don't want forced down my throat.

[StanfordMatt]

My understanding of the history of this region and conflict as well as the present day situation is very limited. I’m also very ignorant with respect to the conflict in Ukraine which is why I have appreciated the insights offered by many posters in that thread.

I understand and respect the reasons why some may feel these types of threads should be closed but I, for one, appreciate them. You could argue that a sports message board isn’t the proper venue for a discussion on these topics but it sure is convenient if I’m already coming to this site on a daily basis for Stanford sports related discussions. I also find several of the posters here more knowledgeable and informative than any number of sources I could find elsewhere.

Just my $0.02.

[StanfordMatt]

My understanding of the history of this region and conflict as well as the present day situation is very limited. I’m also very ignorant with respect to the conflict in Ukraine which is why I have appreciated the insights offered by many posters in that thread.

I understand and respect the reasons why some may feel these types of threads should be closed but I, for one, appreciate them. You could argue that a sports message board isn’t the proper venue for a discussion on these topics but it sure is convenient if I’m already coming to this site on a daily basis for Stanford sports related discussions. I also find several of the posters here more knowledgeable and informative than any number of sources I could find elsewhere.

Just my $0.02.

[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

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.

I agree that fake news is a significant problem, which I the reason I posted the AP article.  
News agencies have strong incentives to publish quickly and to publish stories that generate clicks.
Just as intended, people get emotional when they see the stories, and then pass on the stories to others.
On Saturday, friends passed onto me at least one of the news items that the AP has identified as fake.
I have been guilty of it at times, too, though I try to avoid it.
There are many articles available online explaining the reasons that people believe fake news and then reject the truth even more forcefully.
I am hopeful that our society will find ways to combat this problem, but as of now, the problem seems to be getting worse.
I used to believe that radical free speech was the best way for a society to get to explore issues and get to the truth or decide on values.
Although I continue to think that open communication is important, I have become cynical about whether radical free speech serves truth.
With that said, I respect the posters on this board, and this group is pretty decent at rooting out falsehoods.  
These are some of the reasons that, as of now, I would like this thread to be able to continue.

[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

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.

I agree that fake news is a significant problem, which I the reason I posted the AP article.  
News agencies have strong incentives to publish quickly and to publish stories that generate clicks.
Just as intended, people get emotional when they see the stories, and then pass on the stories to others.
On Saturday, friends passed onto me at least one of the news items that the AP has identified as fake.
I have been guilty of it at times, too, though I try to avoid it.
There are many articles available online explaining the reasons that people believe fake news and then reject the truth even more forcefully.
I am hopeful that our society will find ways to combat this problem, but as of now, the problem seems to be getting worse.
I used to believe that radical free speech was the best way for a society to get to explore issues and get to the truth or decide on values.
Although I continue to think that open communication is important, I have become cynical about whether radical free speech serves truth.
With that said, I respect the posters on this board, and this group is pretty decent at rooting out falsehoods.  
These are some of the reasons that, as of now, I would like this thread to be able to continue.

[dabigv13]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/po...gence.html

The United States has collected multiple pieces of intelligence that show that key Iranian leaders were surprised by the Hamas attack in Israel, information that has fueled U.S. doubts that Iran played a direct role in planning the assault, according to several American officials.
The United States, Israel and key regional allies have not found evidence that Iran directly helped plan the attack, according to the U.S. officials, an Israeli official and another official in the Middle East.
While the U.S. officials would not identify the Iranian officials who expressed surprise at the attack, they said the Iranian officials were people who typically would be aware of operations involving the Quds Force, Iran’s paramilitary arm that supports and works with proxy forces.

Of course, part of the Israeli failure was their normal intelligence channels were all quiet/not talking about an attack before it happened. So maybe the Iranians are also just acting as well as Hamas was on their monitored comms.

[dabigv13]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/po...gence.html

The United States has collected multiple pieces of intelligence that show that key Iranian leaders were surprised by the Hamas attack in Israel, information that has fueled U.S. doubts that Iran played a direct role in planning the assault, according to several American officials.
The United States, Israel and key regional allies have not found evidence that Iran directly helped plan the attack, according to the U.S. officials, an Israeli official and another official in the Middle East.
While the U.S. officials would not identify the Iranian officials who expressed surprise at the attack, they said the Iranian officials were people who typically would be aware of operations involving the Quds Force, Iran’s paramilitary arm that supports and works with proxy forces.

Of course, part of the Israeli failure was their normal intelligence channels were all quiet/not talking about an attack before it happened. So maybe the Iranians are also just acting as well as Hamas was on their monitored comms.

[rogpodge]

I don't have any inside sources. That being said, applying Occam's Razor, the most likely explanation is that there was an intelligence leak (likely from the US) that exposed Israeli - American assets. Those assets probably include those "Iranian sources" willing to talk to people who talk to the New York Times. I would start drafting my will / making plans to flee if I was even adjacent to an intelligence asset in Iran or Gaza.

Yes, there's a possibility that it is genuinely a false flag. But in terms of incentives, it doesn't really make sense from the Israeli side. Would require a "Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country" level of intrigue and will. Way too complicated.

[rogpodge]

I don't have any inside sources. That being said, applying Occam's Razor, the most likely explanation is that there was an intelligence leak (likely from the US) that exposed Israeli - American assets. Those assets probably include those "Iranian sources" willing to talk to people who talk to the New York Times. I would start drafting my will / making plans to flee if I was even adjacent to an intelligence asset in Iran or Gaza.

Yes, there's a possibility that it is genuinely a false flag. But in terms of incentives, it doesn't really make sense from the Israeli side. Would require a "Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country" level of intrigue and will. Way too complicated.

[OutsiderFan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/po...gence.html

The United States has collected multiple pieces of intelligence that show that key Iranian leaders were surprised by the Hamas attack in Israel, information that has fueled U.S. doubts that Iran played a direct role in planning the assault, according to several American officials.
The United States, Israel and key regional allies have not found evidence that Iran directly helped plan the attack, according to the U.S. officials, an Israeli official and another official in the Middle East.
While the U.S. officials would not identify the Iranian officials who expressed surprise at the attack, they said the Iranian officials were people who typically would be aware of operations involving the Quds Force, Iran’s paramilitary arm that supports and works with proxy forces.

Of course, part of the Israeli failure was their normal intelligence channels were all quiet/not talking about an attack before it happened. So maybe the Iranians are also just acting as well as Hamas was on their monitored comms.

You know Israel would love nothing more than to blame Iran for the Hamas attack. If it had any evidence linking the two, it would gladly attack Iran, especially with a hawk like Netenyahu in charge.

The fact U.S. intel says Iran was surprised by the Hamas attack underscores how critical it is to have a strong intelligence regime especially as it relates to sources and methods of collection. If the U.S. was "blind" it would be possible for Israel to say Iran was behind it. The fact the U.S. has exculpatory evidence for Iran to show Israel, ensured Israel wouldn't attack Iran and possibly ignite a larger war. Someone in U.S. intel would have leaked this to the press if Israel was angling to blame and attack Iran.

[OutsiderFan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/po...gence.html

The United States has collected multiple pieces of intelligence that show that key Iranian leaders were surprised by the Hamas attack in Israel, information that has fueled U.S. doubts that Iran played a direct role in planning the assault, according to several American officials.
The United States, Israel and key regional allies have not found evidence that Iran directly helped plan the attack, according to the U.S. officials, an Israeli official and another official in the Middle East.
While the U.S. officials would not identify the Iranian officials who expressed surprise at the attack, they said the Iranian officials were people who typically would be aware of operations involving the Quds Force, Iran’s paramilitary arm that supports and works with proxy forces.

Of course, part of the Israeli failure was their normal intelligence channels were all quiet/not talking about an attack before it happened. So maybe the Iranians are also just acting as well as Hamas was on their monitored comms.

You know Israel would love nothing more than to blame Iran for the Hamas attack. If it had any evidence linking the two, it would gladly attack Iran, especially with a hawk like Netenyahu in charge.

The fact U.S. intel says Iran was surprised by the Hamas attack underscores how critical it is to have a strong intelligence regime especially as it relates to sources and methods of collection. If the U.S. was "blind" it would be possible for Israel to say Iran was behind it. The fact the U.S. has exculpatory evidence for Iran to show Israel, ensured Israel wouldn't attack Iran and possibly ignite a larger war. Someone in U.S. intel would have leaked this to the press if Israel was angling to blame and attack Iran.

[cardcrimson]

At least it's not Stanford in the news this time. Harvard students facing significant backlash after solely blaming Israel for the attack on their citizens:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/business/...index.html

[cardcrimson]

At least it's not Stanford in the news this time. Harvard students facing significant backlash after solely blaming Israel for the attack on their citizens:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/business/...index.html

[GK3]

At least it's not Stanford in the news this time. Harvard students facing significant backlash after solely blaming Israel for the attack on their citizens:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/business/...index.html

The great conundrum in this problem is basically whether true peace between Israel and Palestine and its actors is possible?  Peace requires both sides to agree to the terms and then act to maintain those terms.  The following document was written in 2006, but much of what is in it remains true today and it is worth a read.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/ara...d%20Miller.

As the article points out peace will be impossible without true trust between the parties.  IMHO it would take a major change by both parties to arrive at any true level of trust.  What has really changed in the last 75 years of history between the parties?  Very little I would say.

[GK3]

At least it's not Stanford in the news this time. Harvard students facing significant backlash after solely blaming Israel for the attack on their citizens:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/business/...index.html

The great conundrum in this problem is basically whether true peace between Israel and Palestine and its actors is possible?  Peace requires both sides to agree to the terms and then act to maintain those terms.  The following document was written in 2006, but much of what is in it remains true today and it is worth a read.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/ara...d%20Miller.

As the article points out peace will be impossible without true trust between the parties.  IMHO it would take a major change by both parties to arrive at any true level of trust.  What has really changed in the last 75 years of history between the parties?  Very little I would say.

[Goose]

I would suggest everyone read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine. One thing that is immediately apparent is that over the last 2000+ years (at least), many different groups have "ruled" major parts of this area. The idea that "outsiders" are going to quit "meddling" seems very improbable at best. Further, the "outsiders" often became the majority in the area, so who is really an "outsider"? It is immediately apparent that being "right" matters not at all in the equation of who "wins". Whether it is Alexander's phalanx, X Fretensis, Mamluk cavalry,  or the IDF the strongest force controls the land.

The idea of "trust" between the parties in such confrontations is specious. As long as the various "protagonists" exist, they will continue to struggle against each other. The only thing that brings "peace" in such a situation is the creation of a stable balance of power where both sides realize that armed conflict will not improve their situation. Both sides will be vigilant and maintain at least a military balance, because if they do not their opponent will eventually take advantage of the situation. It is certainly true that one side may be so far "down" in the fight that their risk tolerance is immense. They believe things are so bad, how much worse can they get? The opposite is also true. If one side believes the other is too weak to even attempt resistance, they will take advantage of the situation. It is not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when".

This evaluation is pessimistic, but IMO it is just reality. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to accept "defeat" and attempt to form a prosperous Palestinian state elsewhere in the middle east. They simply aren't going to do that it seems. They will accept only total victory. Is their "cause" a "just" one? IMO it doesn't really matter either way. They are pursuing it.  That doesn't mean terrorism and atrocities are "acceptable" but it does mean this conflict won't end as long as both sides exist. Really, really sad, but IMO that is the way it is.

It is tempting to hope that "outside forces" could intervene and force both sides to "stay in their corners". To some extent, the cold war did that. However, even then the conflict simmered. Outside political and economic forces can suppress the conflict, but they can't make it go away. It is also highly unlikely that those "outside forces" will remain in agreement on what is an acceptable "status-quo". Then, the outside forces will become "part of the problem" (Iran at least, and arguably many others).  It may be the current "protagonists" go on killing each other indefinitely.

[Goose]

I would suggest everyone read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine. One thing that is immediately apparent is that over the last 2000+ years (at least), many different groups have "ruled" major parts of this area. The idea that "outsiders" are going to quit "meddling" seems very improbable at best. Further, the "outsiders" often became the majority in the area, so who is really an "outsider"? It is immediately apparent that being "right" matters not at all in the equation of who "wins". Whether it is Alexander's phalanx, X Fretensis, Mamluk cavalry,  or the IDF the strongest force controls the land.

The idea of "trust" between the parties in such confrontations is specious. As long as the various "protagonists" exist, they will continue to struggle against each other. The only thing that brings "peace" in such a situation is the creation of a stable balance of power where both sides realize that armed conflict will not improve their situation. Both sides will be vigilant and maintain at least a military balance, because if they do not their opponent will eventually take advantage of the situation. It is certainly true that one side may be so far "down" in the fight that their risk tolerance is immense. They believe things are so bad, how much worse can they get? The opposite is also true. If one side believes the other is too weak to even attempt resistance, they will take advantage of the situation. It is not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when".

This evaluation is pessimistic, but IMO it is just reality. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to accept "defeat" and attempt to form a prosperous Palestinian state elsewhere in the middle east. They simply aren't going to do that it seems. They will accept only total victory. Is their "cause" a "just" one? IMO it doesn't really matter either way. They are pursuing it.  That doesn't mean terrorism and atrocities are "acceptable" but it does mean this conflict won't end as long as both sides exist. Really, really sad, but IMO that is the way it is.

It is tempting to hope that "outside forces" could intervene and force both sides to "stay in their corners". To some extent, the cold war did that. However, even then the conflict simmered. Outside political and economic forces can suppress the conflict, but they can't make it go away. It is also highly unlikely that those "outside forces" will remain in agreement on what is an acceptable "status-quo". Then, the outside forces will become "part of the problem" (Iran at least, and arguably many others).  It may be the current "protagonists" go on killing each other indefinitely.

[OutsiderFan]

I would suggest everyone read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine. One thing that is immediately apparent is that over the last 2000+ years (at least), many different groups have "ruled" major parts of this area. The idea that "outsiders" are going to quit "meddling" seems very improbable at best. Further, the "outsiders" often became the majority in the area, so who is really an "outsider"? It is immediately apparent that being "right" matters not at all in the equation of who "wins". Whether it is Alexander's phalanx, X Fretensis, Mamluk cavalry,  or the IDF the strongest force controls the land.

The idea of "trust" between the parties in such confrontations is specious. As long as the various "protagonists" exist, they will continue to struggle against each other. The only thing that brings "peace" in such a situation is the creation of a stable balance of power where both sides realize that armed conflict will not improve their situation. Both sides will be vigilant and maintain at least a military balance, because if they do not their opponent will eventually take advantage of the situation. It is certainly true that one side may be so far "down" in the fight that their risk tolerance is immense. They believe things are so bad, how much worse can they get? The opposite is also true. If one side believes the other is too weak to even attempt resistance, they will take advantage of the situation. It is not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when".

This evaluation is pessimistic, but IMO it is just reality. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to accept "defeat" and attempt to form a prosperous Palestinian state elsewhere in the middle east. They simply aren't going to do that it seems. They will accept only total victory. Is their "cause" a "just" one? IMO it doesn't really matter either way. They are pursuing it.  That doesn't mean terrorism and atrocities are "acceptable" but it does mean this conflict won't end as long as both sides exist. Really, really sad, but IMO that is the way it is.

It is tempting to hope that "outside forces" could intervene and force both sides to "stay in their corners". To some extent, the cold war did that. However, even then the conflict simmered. Outside political and economic forces can suppress the conflict, but they can't make it go away. It is also highly unlikely that those "outside forces" will remain in agreement on what is an acceptable "status-quo". Then, the outside forces will become "part of the problem" (Iran at least, and arguably many others).  It may be the current "protagonists" go on killing each other indefinitely.

This is effectively what I meant when I said everyone should butt out and let the parties fight among themselves without outsiders making it a proxy fight. Either one side will kill the other off, or both sides will realize the price is too high to continue fighting and come to some compromise that stops them from killing each other.

When you have such strong disagreements, the parties must come up with their own solutions in order for them to have the ownership needed to sustain them. If outside parties try to fix it with their own ideas, either side can say the solution wasn't their own idea. It must be their own idea.

[OutsiderFan]

I would suggest everyone read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine. One thing that is immediately apparent is that over the last 2000+ years (at least), many different groups have "ruled" major parts of this area. The idea that "outsiders" are going to quit "meddling" seems very improbable at best. Further, the "outsiders" often became the majority in the area, so who is really an "outsider"? It is immediately apparent that being "right" matters not at all in the equation of who "wins". Whether it is Alexander's phalanx, X Fretensis, Mamluk cavalry,  or the IDF the strongest force controls the land.

The idea of "trust" between the parties in such confrontations is specious. As long as the various "protagonists" exist, they will continue to struggle against each other. The only thing that brings "peace" in such a situation is the creation of a stable balance of power where both sides realize that armed conflict will not improve their situation. Both sides will be vigilant and maintain at least a military balance, because if they do not their opponent will eventually take advantage of the situation. It is certainly true that one side may be so far "down" in the fight that their risk tolerance is immense. They believe things are so bad, how much worse can they get? The opposite is also true. If one side believes the other is too weak to even attempt resistance, they will take advantage of the situation. It is not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when".

This evaluation is pessimistic, but IMO it is just reality. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to accept "defeat" and attempt to form a prosperous Palestinian state elsewhere in the middle east. They simply aren't going to do that it seems. They will accept only total victory. Is their "cause" a "just" one? IMO it doesn't really matter either way. They are pursuing it.  That doesn't mean terrorism and atrocities are "acceptable" but it does mean this conflict won't end as long as both sides exist. Really, really sad, but IMO that is the way it is.

It is tempting to hope that "outside forces" could intervene and force both sides to "stay in their corners". To some extent, the cold war did that. However, even then the conflict simmered. Outside political and economic forces can suppress the conflict, but they can't make it go away. It is also highly unlikely that those "outside forces" will remain in agreement on what is an acceptable "status-quo". Then, the outside forces will become "part of the problem" (Iran at least, and arguably many others).  It may be the current "protagonists" go on killing each other indefinitely.

This is effectively what I meant when I said everyone should butt out and let the parties fight among themselves without outsiders making it a proxy fight. Either one side will kill the other off, or both sides will realize the price is too high to continue fighting and come to some compromise that stops them from killing each other.

When you have such strong disagreements, the parties must come up with their own solutions in order for them to have the ownership needed to sustain them. If outside parties try to fix it with their own ideas, either side can say the solution wasn't their own idea. It must be their own idea.

[gocard14]

I would suggest everyone read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine. One thing that is immediately apparent is that over the last 2000+ years (at least), many different groups have "ruled" major parts of this area. The idea that "outsiders" are going to quit "meddling" seems very improbable at best. Further, the "outsiders" often became the majority in the area, so who is really an "outsider"? It is immediately apparent that being "right" matters not at all in the equation of who "wins". Whether it is Alexander's phalanx, X Fretensis, Mamluk cavalry,  or the IDF the strongest force controls the land.

The idea of "trust" between the parties in such confrontations is specious. As long as the various "protagonists" exist, they will continue to struggle against each other. The only thing that brings "peace" in such a situation is the creation of a stable balance of power where both sides realize that armed conflict will not improve their situation. Both sides will be vigilant and maintain at least a military balance, because if they do not their opponent will eventually take advantage of the situation. It is certainly true that one side may be so far "down" in the fight that their risk tolerance is immense. They believe things are so bad, how much worse can they get? The opposite is also true. If one side believes the other is too weak to even attempt resistance, they will take advantage of the situation. It is not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when".

This evaluation is pessimistic, but IMO it is just reality. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to accept "defeat" and attempt to form a prosperous Palestinian state elsewhere in the middle east. They simply aren't going to do that it seems. They will accept only total victory. Is their "cause" a "just" one? IMO it doesn't really matter either way. They are pursuing it.  That doesn't mean terrorism and atrocities are "acceptable" but it does mean this conflict won't end as long as both sides exist. Really, really sad, but IMO that is the way it is.

It is tempting to hope that "outside forces" could intervene and force both sides to "stay in their corners". To some extent, the cold war did that. However, even then the conflict simmered. Outside political and economic forces can suppress the conflict, but they can't make it go away. It is also highly unlikely that those "outside forces" will remain in agreement on what is an acceptable "status-quo". Then, the outside forces will become "part of the problem" (Iran at least, and arguably many others).  It may be the current "protagonists" go on killing each other indefinitely.

This is also why all the moral backflips people are doing (see Harvard students above) to provide or dismiss justification for what is happening is irrational. Every terrorist that exists, or Russians invading Ukraine, etc have felt morally justified in their terrible actions. No one is the villian in their own story. 

Trying to evaluate the strength of the justification is a fool's errand. Evil is evil. Deliberate and intentional murder of civilians, including children is evil, and those perpetrating it need to be disposed of.

[gocard14]

I would suggest everyone read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine. One thing that is immediately apparent is that over the last 2000+ years (at least), many different groups have "ruled" major parts of this area. The idea that "outsiders" are going to quit "meddling" seems very improbable at best. Further, the "outsiders" often became the majority in the area, so who is really an "outsider"? It is immediately apparent that being "right" matters not at all in the equation of who "wins". Whether it is Alexander's phalanx, X Fretensis, Mamluk cavalry,  or the IDF the strongest force controls the land.

The idea of "trust" between the parties in such confrontations is specious. As long as the various "protagonists" exist, they will continue to struggle against each other. The only thing that brings "peace" in such a situation is the creation of a stable balance of power where both sides realize that armed conflict will not improve their situation. Both sides will be vigilant and maintain at least a military balance, because if they do not their opponent will eventually take advantage of the situation. It is certainly true that one side may be so far "down" in the fight that their risk tolerance is immense. They believe things are so bad, how much worse can they get? The opposite is also true. If one side believes the other is too weak to even attempt resistance, they will take advantage of the situation. It is not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when".

This evaluation is pessimistic, but IMO it is just reality. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to accept "defeat" and attempt to form a prosperous Palestinian state elsewhere in the middle east. They simply aren't going to do that it seems. They will accept only total victory. Is their "cause" a "just" one? IMO it doesn't really matter either way. They are pursuing it.  That doesn't mean terrorism and atrocities are "acceptable" but it does mean this conflict won't end as long as both sides exist. Really, really sad, but IMO that is the way it is.

It is tempting to hope that "outside forces" could intervene and force both sides to "stay in their corners". To some extent, the cold war did that. However, even then the conflict simmered. Outside political and economic forces can suppress the conflict, but they can't make it go away. It is also highly unlikely that those "outside forces" will remain in agreement on what is an acceptable "status-quo". Then, the outside forces will become "part of the problem" (Iran at least, and arguably many others).  It may be the current "protagonists" go on killing each other indefinitely.

This is also why all the moral backflips people are doing (see Harvard students above) to provide or dismiss justification for what is happening is irrational. Every terrorist that exists, or Russians invading Ukraine, etc have felt morally justified in their terrible actions. No one is the villian in their own story. 

Trying to evaluate the strength of the justification is a fool's errand. Evil is evil. Deliberate and intentional murder of civilians, including children is evil, and those perpetrating it need to be disposed of.

[Goose]

This is also why all the moral backflips people are doing (see Harvard students above) to provide or dismiss justification for what is happening is irrational. Every terrorist that exists, or Russians invading Ukraine, etc have felt morally justified in their terrible actions. No one is the villian in their own story.

Totally agree.

Trying to evaluate the strength of the justification is a fool's errand. Evil is evil. Deliberate and intentional murder of civilians, including children is evil, and those perpetrating it need to be disposed of.

It is abundantly clear that intentional killing civilians in warfare is evil, and those doing it have no possible justification. However, I think it is important to realize that killing civilians as "collateral damage" is evil too. It is often accepted as a "necessary" evil that is less morally objectionable, and I agree that is often the case. It is still however an evil, and it is to be greatly regretted in so far as it is "necessary". Every participant in war has to make real sure their evaluation of that "necessity" is dispassionate and not an emotional response to their own losses. This is often very difficult to accomplish. There are no "good" wars, only wars that are less evil than others.

The concept of a "just war" involves several moral concepts. Two important ones are proportionality and reasonable chance of success. It is unjust to start a war over a trivial issue. For instance, starting a war because a newspaper insulted tour president is not "just", because the unavoidable evils of war (killing many people) aren't proportional to the damage a mere insult can inflict. It is also unjust to start a war that you have virtually no chance of winning. Your soldiers (and civilians) will be killed disproportionately and the probability of obtaining your war aims (just or unjust) is virtually nil.

IMO Hamas is certainly guilty of killing civilians for no military reasons. They are also guilty of fighting a war where they have no reasonable chance of success. This assault on Israel isn't going to cause it to collapse, nor is it going to create conditions that will favor Hamas in a continuation of the assault. Hamas will lose lots of their own fighters, but even more importantly suffer massive "collateral damage". It is immoral on both counts. These are "truths" no matter what else has gone on in the past.

---

This is effectively what I meant when I said everyone should butt out and let the parties fight among themselves without outsiders making it a proxy fight.

As I pointed out, the "outsiders" have been involved for the last 2000+ years. No reason for that to change. Also, the definition of "outsider" is difficult because many other nations believe they have "skin in the game", as they have for 2000 years.

Either one side will kill the other off, or both sides will realize the price is too high to continue fighting and come to some compromise that stops them from killing each other.

I think you misunderstand the dynamic. If one side can totally eradicate (genocide) the other, it would end the war. However, destroying an entire people is quite difficult, as history proves. The price being too high to continue fighting approach works only if both sides see it that way simultaneously. That might pause the conflict, but you can rest assured that when one side believes it has an advantage, the conflict will start again. A compromise requires both sides to accept they will never "win" and accepting that condition as permanent. As long as that doesn't happen, the struggle continues, even if there is a temporary pause due to the correlation of forces being equal. At least one side, and arguably both sides, have demonstrated that they will not accept such a situation.

[Goose]

This is also why all the moral backflips people are doing (see Harvard students above) to provide or dismiss justification for what is happening is irrational. Every terrorist that exists, or Russians invading Ukraine, etc have felt morally justified in their terrible actions. No one is the villian in their own story.

Totally agree.

Trying to evaluate the strength of the justification is a fool's errand. Evil is evil. Deliberate and intentional murder of civilians, including children is evil, and those perpetrating it need to be disposed of.

It is abundantly clear that intentional killing civilians in warfare is evil, and those doing it have no possible justification. However, I think it is important to realize that killing civilians as "collateral damage" is evil too. It is often accepted as a "necessary" evil that is less morally objectionable, and I agree that is often the case. It is still however an evil, and it is to be greatly regretted in so far as it is "necessary". Every participant in war has to make real sure their evaluation of that "necessity" is dispassionate and not an emotional response to their own losses. This is often very difficult to accomplish. There are no "good" wars, only wars that are less evil than others.

The concept of a "just war" involves several moral concepts. Two important ones are proportionality and reasonable chance of success. It is unjust to start a war over a trivial issue. For instance, starting a war because a newspaper insulted tour president is not "just", because the unavoidable evils of war (killing many people) aren't proportional to the damage a mere insult can inflict. It is also unjust to start a war that you have virtually no chance of winning. Your soldiers (and civilians) will be killed disproportionately and the probability of obtaining your war aims (just or unjust) is virtually nil.

IMO Hamas is certainly guilty of killing civilians for no military reasons. They are also guilty of fighting a war where they have no reasonable chance of success. This assault on Israel isn't going to cause it to collapse, nor is it going to create conditions that will favor Hamas in a continuation of the assault. Hamas will lose lots of their own fighters, but even more importantly suffer massive "collateral damage". It is immoral on both counts. These are "truths" no matter what else has gone on in the past.

---

This is effectively what I meant when I said everyone should butt out and let the parties fight among themselves without outsiders making it a proxy fight.

As I pointed out, the "outsiders" have been involved for the last 2000+ years. No reason for that to change. Also, the definition of "outsider" is difficult because many other nations believe they have "skin in the game", as they have for 2000 years.

Either one side will kill the other off, or both sides will realize the price is too high to continue fighting and come to some compromise that stops them from killing each other.

I think you misunderstand the dynamic. If one side can totally eradicate (genocide) the other, it would end the war. However, destroying an entire people is quite difficult, as history proves. The price being too high to continue fighting approach works only if both sides see it that way simultaneously. That might pause the conflict, but you can rest assured that when one side believes it has an advantage, the conflict will start again. A compromise requires both sides to accept they will never "win" and accepting that condition as permanent. As long as that doesn't happen, the struggle continues, even if there is a temporary pause due to the correlation of forces being equal. At least one side, and arguably both sides, have demonstrated that they will not accept such a situation.

[murky]

My understanding of the history of this region and conflict as well as the present day situation is very limited. I’m also very ignorant with respect to the conflict in Ukraine which is why I have appreciated the insights offered by many posters in that thread.

I understand and respect the reasons why some may feel these types of threads should be closed but I, for one, appreciate them. You could argue that a sports message board isn’t the proper venue for a discussion on these topics but it sure is convenient if I’m already coming to this site on a daily basis for Stanford sports related discussions. I also find several of the posters here more knowledgeable and informative than any number of sources I could find elsewhere.

Just my $0.02.

I'd like to cosign your post.

[murky]

My understanding of the history of this region and conflict as well as the present day situation is very limited. I’m also very ignorant with respect to the conflict in Ukraine which is why I have appreciated the insights offered by many posters in that thread.

I understand and respect the reasons why some may feel these types of threads should be closed but I, for one, appreciate them. You could argue that a sports message board isn’t the proper venue for a discussion on these topics but it sure is convenient if I’m already coming to this site on a daily basis for Stanford sports related discussions. I also find several of the posters here more knowledgeable and informative than any number of sources I could find elsewhere.

Just my $0.02.

I'd like to cosign your post.

[TonyLima]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/po...gence.html

The United States has collected multiple pieces of intelligence that show that key Iranian leaders were surprised by the Hamas attack in Israel, information that has fueled U.S. doubts that Iran played a direct role in planning the assault, according to several American officials.
The United States, Israel and key regional allies have not found evidence that Iran directly helped plan the attack, according to the U.S. officials, an Israeli official and another official in the Middle East.
While the U.S. officials would not identify the Iranian officials who expressed surprise at the attack, they said the Iranian officials were people who typically would be aware of operations involving the Quds Force, Iran’s paramilitary arm that supports and works with proxy forces.

Of course, part of the Israeli failure was their normal intelligence channels were all quiet/not talking about an attack before it happened. So maybe the Iranians are also just acting as well as Hamas was on their monitored comms.

I have not followed this thread closely, so apologies if this has already been posted.  The Wall Street Journal broke the story of Iran's involvement.  Gifted article, link should work.

[TonyLima]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/po...gence.html

The United States has collected multiple pieces of intelligence that show that key Iranian leaders were surprised by the Hamas attack in Israel, information that has fueled U.S. doubts that Iran played a direct role in planning the assault, according to several American officials.
The United States, Israel and key regional allies have not found evidence that Iran directly helped plan the attack, according to the U.S. officials, an Israeli official and another official in the Middle East.
While the U.S. officials would not identify the Iranian officials who expressed surprise at the attack, they said the Iranian officials were people who typically would be aware of operations involving the Quds Force, Iran’s paramilitary arm that supports and works with proxy forces.

Of course, part of the Israeli failure was their normal intelligence channels were all quiet/not talking about an attack before it happened. So maybe the Iranians are also just acting as well as Hamas was on their monitored comms.

I have not followed this thread closely, so apologies if this has already been posted.  The Wall Street Journal broke the story of Iran's involvement.  Gifted article, link should work.

[dabigv13]

Yes, that was from a few days ago. Important to read closely and look at the sourcing of that article. 

And FWIW-
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/zenjournalist/status...80349?s=20[/tweet]

I am uncertain of Iran's involvement. It's certainly possible, they have some plausible motivations. But to me this smells more of a miscalculation by Hamas rather than something done at Iran's direction.

[dabigv13]

Yes, that was from a few days ago. Important to read closely and look at the sourcing of that article. 

And FWIW-
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/zenjournalist/status...80349?s=20[/tweet]

I am uncertain of Iran's involvement. It's certainly possible, they have some plausible motivations. But to me this smells more of a miscalculation by Hamas rather than something done at Iran's direction.

[Goose]

I am uncertain of Iran's involvement. It's certainly possible, they have some plausible motivations. But to me this smells more of a miscalculation by Hamas rather than something done at Iran's direction.

IMO it probably was a decision solely by Hamas. What Iran knew and when they knew it is IMO unclear. I don't think it was a "miscalculation". I think Hamas knew exactly what the result would be. This is an action that clearly was planned over a very long period of time. It wasn't done on impulse. Hamas wouldn't waste this action on a whim.

The lack of significant direct and immediate action by Hezbollah make me believe Iran didn't order this action. They would want maximum effect and a coordinated action, which this was not.

[Goose]

I am uncertain of Iran's involvement. It's certainly possible, they have some plausible motivations. But to me this smells more of a miscalculation by Hamas rather than something done at Iran's direction.

IMO it probably was a decision solely by Hamas. What Iran knew and when they knew it is IMO unclear. I don't think it was a "miscalculation". I think Hamas knew exactly what the result would be. This is an action that clearly was planned over a very long period of time. It wasn't done on impulse. Hamas wouldn't waste this action on a whim.

The lack of significant direct and immediate action by Hezbollah make me believe Iran didn't order this action. They would want maximum effect and a coordinated action, which this was not.

[TonyLima]

Yes, that was from a few days ago. Important to read closely and look at the sourcing of that article. 

And FWIW-
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/zenjournalist/status...80349?s=20[/tweet]

I am uncertain of Iran's involvement. It's certainly possible, they have some plausible motivations. But to me this smells more of a miscalculation by Hamas rather than something done at Iran's direction.

Might want to give a listen to “Ink Stained Wretches.” It’s a podcast that critiques mainstream media news coverage. Latest pod talks extensively about war stories. Like me, they are skeptical of NY Times content about, well, about anything.

[TonyLima]

Yes, that was from a few days ago. Important to read closely and look at the sourcing of that article. 

And FWIW-
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/zenjournalist/status...80349?s=20[/tweet]

I am uncertain of Iran's involvement. It's certainly possible, they have some plausible motivations. But to me this smells more of a miscalculation by Hamas rather than something done at Iran's direction.

Might want to give a listen to “Ink Stained Wretches.” It’s a podcast that critiques mainstream media news coverage. Latest pod talks extensively about war stories. Like me, they are skeptical of NY Times content about, well, about anything.

[admin]

I'm monitoring this thread for Antisemitism and Islamophobia. So far, I haven't seen either even though it has the high potential for both.

Because many news sources have left X due to its current ownership and because a large portion of its user base is likely to engage in either, I'm asking (but for now, not requiring) members not use that source on this thread.

[admin]

I'm monitoring this thread for Antisemitism and Islamophobia. So far, I haven't seen either even though it has the high potential for both.

Because many news sources have left X due to its current ownership and because a large portion of its user base is likely to engage in either, I'm asking (but for now, not requiring) members not use that source on this thread.

[BigJohn043]

I am uncertain of Iran's involvement. It's certainly possible, they have some plausible motivations. But to me this smells more of a miscalculation by Hamas rather than something done at Iran's direction.

IMO it probably was a decision solely by Hamas. What Iran knew and when they knew it is IMO unclear. I don't think it was a "miscalculation". I think Hamas knew exactly what the result would be. This is an action that clearly was planned over a very long period of time. It wasn't done on impulse. Hamas wouldn't waste this action on a whim.

The lack of significant direct and immediate action by Hezbollah make me believe Iran didn't order this action. They would want maximum effect and a coordinated action, which this was not.

FWIW, I disagree.  I think this was a classic case of the dog catching the car.  Hammas thought they would kill a couple of jews and maybe take a hostage or two.  They had no idea that their attack would work this well.

The consequences at this point are going to be horrific.

[BigJohn043]

I am uncertain of Iran's involvement. It's certainly possible, they have some plausible motivations. But to me this smells more of a miscalculation by Hamas rather than something done at Iran's direction.

IMO it probably was a decision solely by Hamas. What Iran knew and when they knew it is IMO unclear. I don't think it was a "miscalculation". I think Hamas knew exactly what the result would be. This is an action that clearly was planned over a very long period of time. It wasn't done on impulse. Hamas wouldn't waste this action on a whim.

The lack of significant direct and immediate action by Hezbollah make me believe Iran didn't order this action. They would want maximum effect and a coordinated action, which this was not.

FWIW, I disagree.  I think this was a classic case of the dog catching the car.  Hammas thought they would kill a couple of jews and maybe take a hostage or two.  They had no idea that their attack would work this well.

The consequences at this point are going to be horrific.

[Goose]

FWIW, I disagree.  I think this was a classic case of the dog catching the car.  Hammas thought they would kill a couple of jews and maybe take a hostage or two.  They had no idea that their attack would work this well.

I do agree that it is probable that the attack worked better than Hamas expected. However, that doesn't change the argument that this was a Hamas decision, not an Iranian one. The scope of the attack, even if it was more successful than anticipated, pretty much ensured a massive response, especially considering the political situation in Israel. That Hamas would even try to breach the border with fighters (as opposed to rockets and mortars) is an entirely different threat than Israel expected. In and of itself that requires a "vigorous"  response.

[Goose]

FWIW, I disagree.  I think this was a classic case of the dog catching the car.  Hammas thought they would kill a couple of jews and maybe take a hostage or two.  They had no idea that their attack would work this well.

I do agree that it is probable that the attack worked better than Hamas expected. However, that doesn't change the argument that this was a Hamas decision, not an Iranian one. The scope of the attack, even if it was more successful than anticipated, pretty much ensured a massive response, especially considering the political situation in Israel. That Hamas would even try to breach the border with fighters (as opposed to rockets and mortars) is an entirely different threat than Israel expected. In and of itself that requires a "vigorous"  response.