Ali's Journal

The US says its response to the killing of three US soldiers has started. There are different viewpoints about the scale of the response. However, there are two types of responses:

A) aggressive attacks without calculating possible outcomes: The consequences of aggressive attacks in such a turbulent environment cannot be predicted. So any suggestion for more aggressive attacks is either a PR bluff to show they are decisive people, or it is throwing explosives with closed eyes without knowing what might happen next.

B) attacks such that the outcomes and consequences of the attack can reasonably be predicted and controlled.

The UN has repeatedly said that the existence of UNRWA is vital for people in Gaza. However, Israeli officials again expressed that it should be totally abolished. This is a cheaper way to kill thousands of people compared to military operations.

Since the UN has clearly expressed its concern about the grave consequences of abolishing UNRWA for all residents of Gaza, any attempt to exterminate UNRWA shows that the global community is willing to erase a population with the goal of killing some militants among them. This is a dangerous trend.

However, it was mentioned before that long-term plans for peace require that UNRWA be fundamentally reshaped.

I had talked about the omission process in democracy previously I think I should repeat it once again.

Governance methods that are based on eliminating and controlling others will not succeed. Democracy provides a means to select a viewpoint among different options. Any other method to eliminate and control others is against democracy (elimination here means temporarily blocking one’s political career).

If a platform aims to incorporate collective intelligence, but it is intentionally developed so that the weight of a group of users is more than all others, competing platforms will eliminate that by providing means to harness collective intelligence more efficiently. So it’s not a good strategy for developers to undermine themselves by being inefficient.

As mentioned before it is required that UNRWA is reorganized. However, since a large number of people currently rely on humanitarian aid, the reformation should be postponed to when the war is over.

The human cost of suspending UNRWA’s funds is huge. The idea of protecting Israelis by killing all Palestinians should be discarded. Israelis should be protected by protecting Palestinians.

North Korea enormously relies on China economically. All the noisy braveness North Korea shows is limited to the West. It dares not to say one word that displeases China.

Iran sees that some people criticize the US, argue with the UK officials, fight with Israel’s far right, condemn Iran’s top officials and think “We want to do that too”. To do that you should be strong on different fronts. military power alone is nothing. You should be strong in different areas. And by strong I don’t mean pretending to be strong. I mean actually being strong. you should be able to produce technologies that other countries need. It means you should be economically strong. Then if Israel breaks international laws you can intervene productively (not making useless noises). If mega-companies in the US obstruct the democratic processes you can openly criticize it. If the UK officials hesitate to make the right decisions you can argue with them (you can also neglect Russia entirely when they try to be part of the play).

If you are weak you can’t do any of them. You can’t argue with the East and West at the same time whenever they do things that are against your interests or values. This is not dictatorship, this is about having the strength of being independent.

As a side note, you’re strong when your influence doesn’t depend on your position or where you are located (prison, etc.).

UPDATE 1:

Iran executed 4 political prisoners. Iran sends messages by killing. They decide who should live and who should die but are unable to see and solve their problems. This is the pattern Iran repeats over and over. It attacks a target to send mostly a domestic message, then another attack to push the world’s attention away from the first attack. This always has a reverse effect.

This is a clear sign of a declining system: An inability to learn from the past.

UPDATE 2:

No, if I start an argument with one side, I don’t rush to the other side when the ideology of the new side is in complete contrast with mine. I don’t let my enemies specify my position on the chessboard. If I say side A is my enemy no matter what it does, then its stance on different issues will specify my views because I have to object to them, no matter what they are. Because I have defined myself as the enemy of side A, because if I, someday, put aside that hostility all my legacy will be gone. When all achievement of my lifetime was built upon hostility, how can I forsake hostility?

I would build my legacy on different foundations so if one turns out to be wrong, it won’t be a disaster, I will still have something to offer, and I’m still relevant.

So no, my arguments with one side will not push me toward you. If all sides are at odds with me, I won’t seek protection from you. I have already built a legacy.

UPDATE 3:

Iranian officials should know the West and the democratic world in general is not one thing. It changes, and if you oppose the West no matter what, you should oppose contradicting things over time. Democracy is a system, I try to improve it. The output of an election might be a wrong ideology, but this doesn’t disvalue the system, because the system is improved so that it can correct itself. So if you point to a bad president and say look this guy is bad, yes sure he was very bad but if the system contains mechanisms to correct itself, the system is still valid.

I don’t side with people, I try to improve the system, and yes this system may produce bad results too. I don’t rely on those examples to show my hostility to that system was relevant, instead, I’ll try to improve that global system.

UPDATE 4:

Democratic systems are based on parties. The structure of parties is in such a way as to ensure it produces coherent policies. But it doesn’t mean there are no opposing ideas within the party. Elements of this entity try to change it. So parties are flexible structures. I will retain my independence when I join the Green Party by trying to influence the party within the structure of the system. All party members should do the same.

79 years after Auschwitz’s liberation, the fight against racism is more important than ever before. Racism around the world is on the rise and political tensions can push the world toward catastrophes at scales not seen in a very long time. This requires universal collaboration to achieve sustainable peace.

It is claimed that around 12 UNRWA workers aided Hamas on 7 Oct attracts by providing logistic information. This requires a structural change in the organization. This change is now necessary because the global approach toward sustainable peace in the region has changed and therefore a fundamental change in the structure of the organization is necessary.

Punishing the entire population because some Hamas fighters attacked Israel is against international law and South Africa is currently trying to prove Israel is trying to punish all people in Gaza because of Hamas. Abolishing a humanitarian aid organization, because it is claimed that some of its workers helped Hamas, is clear proof that if one Hamas fighter attacks Israel, all Palestinians will be punished in return.