Piped: https://piped.video/watch?v=zMxHU34IgyY
On October 7, 2023, Hamas initiated an offensive against Israel in a manner unseen for a half century. This video goes deep into the broader source of the conflict. Unlike traditional explanations, it highlights bargaining frictions as a key cause. It is not sufficient to simply point to the substantive issues in dispute between Hamas and Israel. As long as war is costly, both sides should prefer avoiding a war in principle. Thus, we must explain the conflict using bargaining frictions: first strike advantages, long-term shifts in the balance of power, uncertainty over the outcome of war, or leader biases.
Hope you like some lines on maps, because there is going to be a heavy dose of them today!
- 0:00 Hamas and Israel at War
- 2:25 The Substantive Conflict
- 5:53 War’s Inefficiency Puzzle
- 10:37 First Strike Advantages and Preemptive War
- 13:04 Power Shifts, Preventive War, and Saudi Arabia
- 16:13 Information Problems and Turbulent Israeli Politics
- 17:36 Leader Benefits and Violence as Advertisement
- 19:02 Which One Caused the War?
- 20:40 Can You Get KFC in Gaza?
Questions:
#1 at 8:20 “Israel’s value for fighting is everything below the blue line. It is thus Israel’s metaphorical red line.”
I have no idea what this means. What is “value for fighting” in this context? Things worth fighting for, like protecting cities and citizens?
Similarly at 8:45 “Everything below the green line is preferrable to conflict”, what does this mean? Can someone explain in other words?
9:05 I understand this part in this way: When fighting is costly, there is usually (always?) a region in which both sides can compromise, and both sides get a better outcome than they could achieve through fighting.
Objection: What if both sides have very different estimates on what they could conquer by force? Then each believes fighting is preferrable, although they cannot both be true. Like as in 11:20, when he talks about first strikes.
#2 at 9:42 Can someone explain the reference to a self-determination meter in other words?
I have watched this video but the analogy is confusing for me, in this case since it is not a territory conflict like the Russian war in Ukraine.
It’s not a line on map really, but like you said an attempt to control the other side shown as a line on map. Which doesn’t work for me as a metaphor.
Regarding the compromise his theory is that each side has a target and as long as the cost of achieving seems feasible they will go for it.
I am not sure the analysis works here either. I don’t know what is the target of each side. Israel removing Hamas is not realistic and they know it for sure, so it don’t know what compromise or exit strategy can be found if the targets of each side are so irreconcilable.
to sum it up: it’s perfectly normal you’re confused. the video is intentionally confused and confusing.
verbosely the video is incredibly full of nothing. all the credibility fell to zero when that chicken came on screen. no serious analysis would ever joke like that: why is always chicken? because this is the nth production based on usa cultural pov.
such a production, as recent history have shown, is pretty pointless when it comes to “explaining things” and it’s only good to water down facts, blurring borders, downplay history events, and line usa govt criminal actions, in the worst case, as the very very very least bad of all actions, and in any case the consequences are always in the range of the best predictable outcomes. and this video does this very well for all I’ve seen; I must admit that at the nth jump in narration with contradiction included (tremendous combo) it became unbearable and i stopped watching it. so I don’t know if the point about usa govt would apply to this specific video.
for example the author explains how he doesn’t know, like everybody else having time to watch his video, what are the reasons and objectives represented by that line he keeps drawing and skewing on the map (just this would be enough: the metaphor, the line, doesn’t overlap in any way what the author is talking about. it’s intentionally misleading, confusing, or thought by a fool); a few seconds later he assures you that he knows how political leaders act.
the video it’s such an act of complete buffoonery: either the author is trying to fool the audience, or is in complete cognitive dissonance.