Politics, Economics, Development, Terrorism

  "Lip Sympathies" and the Indomitable Spirit of Resistance A friend recently expressed distress over the "lip sympathies" offered by liberals for the suffering Palestinians. My response was this: Historically, the oppressed have always had to fight their own battles. Even in Gaza, the so-called "lip sympathies" are inextricably tied to the Palestinians' relentless resistance to oppression. Our moral outrage—yours and mine—stems not just from their suffering but from the indomitable spirit of those who refuse to submit. What if the Palestinians had chosen the easy path—meekly accepting their subservient role? Given the staggering power asymmetry, surrender might seem the "rational" choice. After all, those who comply with exploitation often avoid violence. They might even be fed, clothed, and superficially valued—much like slaves who never revolted, or cows worshipped by those who shackle them, control their bodies, and commodify their exi...

Choices in Conflict: Navigating Asymmetric Wars with Historical Wisdom Conflicts are a part and parcel of human existence. This becomes a problem when power asymmetry upsets the delicate balance. In chess, the pivotal move isn’t just strategy, but what you assume about your opponent’s next moves. History reveals that wars and peace-talks hinge on deliberate choices by leaders and people, shaped by two core assumptions about the other side’s motives. These choices determine whether we spiral into bloodshed or find peace, especially in asymmetric conflicts where power imbalances loom large. By weaving through historical tales, we’ll uncover which assumption offers the best shot at peace, order, and justice with the least human cost—particularly so, in today’s divided world. The first assumption is rigid: our side stands for peace, order, and justice, while the other seeks violence, anarchy, and injustice. This mindset slams the door on talks, viewing any offer of negotiation as a ruse. T...

  The Revolution’s Gentle Dawn—And the Lessons We Lost Introduction In the winter of 1917, Russia did the impossible: it toppled a 300-year autocracy without firing a shot . Crowds melted imperial insignia into souvenir medallions; soldiers and students debated socialism in tram cars. John Reed, the American journalist who wandered Petrograd in those days, wrote: "It was less a revolution than a festival of hope." The tragedy is not that violence came later—but that it didn’t have to. The revolution’s bloodless birth proves change can be gentle. Its collapse proves how easily we forget that. 1. The Peaceful Revolution The February Revolution (March 1917 by our calendar) was a marvel of restraint: The Czar’s Quiet Exit : Nicholas II abdicated after his own generals refused to crush protests. The crowds didn’t storm the Winter Palace—they ignored it. A clerk’s diary noted: "The Tsar left like a guest who overstayed." The...