The Economic Force of Ideologies

When we see the atitudes and opinions of the media and international organization, it is hard not to notice some tendencies.

And honestly, I don't get so dismayed anymore.

There is a lot of honest people in the World, but there are also forces of money and power around.

The human being has long ago learned that there are easiest ways to grow more than their oponents than playing fair.

But when we talk about propaganda, some people think it would all naturally be dominated by the United States, because it has the biggest Economy.

We should not be blind to the economic power of natural resources, and the growth of China, for instance.

And another extremely important thing to think about: how much of the economic force of an extremely controlled Society is alligned and at service of an unilateral political project, compared to democratic societies?

There are strong forces around that do not like human freedom and individual rights.

And people who claim to defend the oppressed often distort things more than clarify.

Also This

 

And This

 

The Middle Path in a Volatile Environment

 

Much More Harm

The mutual protection that people of a group provide to one another, protection from transgressors inside and aggressors from outside, is one of the most basic principles without which no human being can live a peaceful life.

The principle of having empathy for people from another group is also fundamental.

In wars, those two principles seem to clash.

The only possible solution seems to be finding the point where these two principles meet: you don't attack peaceful neighbors, and when you have to strike in self-defense you never aim at civillians, and do the best you can to mitigate civillian harm.

There will still be collateral damage, but the moment you take away the right of a group to fight to defend itself trying to balance those two principles, you are rewarding the leaderships that promote aggression and don't care for their own people.

Because we will be "forgeting" who started situations and releasing them from the responsibility to provide safety for their own.

Collateral damage is always tragic, but rewarding aggressive and careless leaders will have evil consequences that are neither hipotetical nor abstract. Nor are they new.

This logic of how things work in our planet should not feel so counterintuitive. It only goes to show that the concern for human life should not be limited to seeing war casualties and suddenly being outraged.

There is a part of the World where life is not valued. We just can't magicaly make life on that side of the fence to have the same logic that it has in peaceful places.

But we can, and must, be clear with leaders that don't value the life of their own people.

And we certainly must be ready to show some kind of response when the resources of some region start being alocated for ideologies, capacity and plans of aggression.

Why are we hesitant in considering tyrants as enemies, and then want people under their rule not to be subject to the consequences of those ideologies?

There is nothing gained in being blind to diferences in human Societies. Each people have their own traditions that obviously must be respected, but the valuation or devaluation of human life must be seen as a primordial and not abstract aspect of reality.

We can't go all the way and suddenly protect everybody in the World as if their were our own children, but the more firm we are with our standards, the more we make them clear, not being friends with people who treat human life as disposable, suspecting them, and, honestly, being always against them, always fighting them in some form, the more we will be acting in favor of life.

Until then, each and every sudden outburst of global "concern" can and will be used to cause much more harm than relief.

Enter Into The Picture

 "The Syrian Civil War (2010s) killed ten times more Arab Muslins then the current War between Israel and Hamas".

"Oh, you are changing subject"

Really?

This is the territory of France projected, in scale, over the Middle East.

This is Texas.

This is the region where you expect Israel to make miracles.

Ladies and gentlemen, activists, journalists, UN, say Hi ...

to the most careful gun of Texas.

Human Safety, Principles, and the Present Opportunity

Since the beginning, humans have been forming groups. Tribes, Nations. That's how we organized societies. A group of people that provide each other some safety. Protect each other from transgressors inside the group and from agressors from outside. Cultures have formed, with shared values and a sense of mutual protection. That's just how it is. Besides this group protection, is there any other way in which any human being can feel safe and build a peaceful life?

Countries came to be. We have to agree that this group protection is a fundamental principle of human life.

Now, of course, we learned, our moral sense evolved, and we developed another principle: the necessity of caring for all humanity, the necessity of having empathy for people in the other groups. This is a very good principle, and necessary for building a better World. I believe it must be considered fundamental, too.

Well, in a war, these two principles pose complex questions for each other. Even when a country goes to war to eliminate a source of threat after being attacked, as is the case of Israel in their war against Hamas, there is going to be colateral damage, there will be loss of civillian lives, even when you do your best to minimize it. 

But you can't totally give away the right of a group to protect itself. So, how to balance these two principles?

People talk about "proportion". But I think it is a wrong idea of proportion. They compare numbers of civillian casualties. But it is not so simple. In fact, you don't hurt one single civillian on the other side to "match the number" of your hurt civillians. That would be wrong.

Once you go to a war because the other ways to bring safety to your people didn't work, you fight for a goal - namely, to eliminate the source of the threat - and you make the best to achieve the necessary goal with the minimal damage possible.

Journalists like to talk about numbers. But how do you calculate what would happen if the Israeli forces haven't destroyed so many missile launchers, both in Gaza and in Lebannon - remembering that Hamas and Hezbollah started firing missiles immediately after October 7th, the massacre that started this war? How do you calculate what would happen if Hezbollah launched the operation "Conquer the Galilee" - a plan to invade Israel by the North killing people, a plan that was in advanced stage? How to calculate what would happen if the terrorists managed to totally take Israeli small towns and communities, gaining terrain, as was their plan?

And moreover, how do you calculate what would be the future of Muslin Arabs if Terrorist Organizations backed by Iran were allowed to grow freely and completely destabilize the region, considering that just the Syrian Civil War caused ten times more Muslin Arab casualties than this Israel-Hamas War?

Well, since you don't have an Omniscient Computer, able to calculate perfectly the exact mathematical outcome in the future of every single human decision, human beings act guided by principles. What else if left for us?

You put the fundamental principles side by side. Like the principle of self-defense of a people and the principle of empathy for all people. Then you try to find the balance. You try to serve each one the best you can without abandoning the other.

You protect your people. You don't aim at civillians on the other side. Even in strikes against military targets, you do the best you can to minimize colateral damage.

Asking someone to do more than that, is asking them to abandon the right of self-defense. And that is like asking someone to sacrifice their own people. Can't you see this kind of sacrifice can't be the guarantee of any good?

What is left, is to find the meeting point of those two fundamental principles. Which is fighting with ethics, minimizing the damage.

Israel has shown their consistent focus on the Terrorist Organizations.They have eliminated pratically all of the main leaders, the most protected people.

This World has always been full of wars. The World we want, a World without war, will come with the cooperation between peoples, between Nations. It can't be brought to be by Israel alone.

To move forward towards a better World, we need to ascribe the right responsibilities. If in this sequence of events - Hamas promotes a massacre on Israel - Israel fights back - Hamas uses their people as human shields - if in this sequence of events you place the responsibility on Israel, you are rewarding both aggression and carelessness.

Some people seem to be guided by this idea: Israel is a Country, Hamas are terrorists, you can demand things from a country, you can't demand things from a terrorist organization. Wait... are you sure of that? What if you can?

People who value life want a World with no wars. But there is an other kind of people too, have you realized?

The other side exist, too. And it's alive and manouvering. And the exact moment you reject the pursuit of a meeting point between the principles of self-defense and consideration for all peoples, you reward carelessness and aggression.

In other words, when we think of the future of humanity, we either balance those two things, or we will end up with none.

Now there is a ceasefire, and the agreements say Hamas must disarm. Instead of pressing for that - which would bring a better time for the region, including for Gazans, most leaders of the World prefer to demonize Israel.

Some even talk about a Palestinian State, when it was precisely the rejection of the Two State Solution by the Arab leaders that caused all this - and they still didn't say "Israel is legitimate".

On excuses like "sovereignity of Gaza" - bullshit talk about the sovereignity of a people who lives under a tyrannic Terrorist Organization for decades, people seem comfortable to lose the best opportunity we had in a long time to start erasing Terrorism.

I don't know. Maybe they don't want to see how Israel would act without Terrorism. Maybe they've been talking about "genocide" for so long that they are afraid to give Israel a chance to show that all they want is peace.