I can agree with you for China, since it is preceived as a respectable power. For Hamas though, it would be entirely on-brand to simply take the money first. I think their fellow Gazans would respect them for it as well.
What Hamas won't do is sign on paper that they recognise Israel. The Palestinian Authority who sort of did that are considered traitors by many Palestinians, and taking changed the political role of the leaders involved substantially. If Hamas did that too, they likely would not be Hamas anymore.
how well did China honour the Hong Kong handover agreement with "two systems". Like most broken treaties, few are willing to pay the cost of undoing the broken treaty.
In equilibrium, people don't bother to make claims they know nobody will believe.
It's ironic you cite the Night of the Long Knives, because Hitler actually DID double-cross numerous countries that he signed treaties with only to violate later!
Very well put. I think it would also be a mistake to view some of these positions such as the PRC's One Child Policy or Hamas's antizionism as irrational. They're perfectly rational, once we accept that not all goals and value systems permit conversion to money/utils, because not all people and value systems view maximization of material prosperity as the highest good. Something does not have to be quantifiable to be rational. For many Chinese nationalists, for example, the unification and ascendancy of the Chinese people is the highest good and worth any material sacrifice, and likewise for Hamas and antizionism. When you share those views and goals, their pursuits are rational.
Another important point is that states are not actors; people are actors, and state decision-makers have personal motivations that often differ from the best interests of the states they lead.
Most of the first page of google images for the search term "deadlock" is the game. The only other kind was the poster for a (terrible) Bruce Willis movie so I don't think Bryan is a secret Valve fan.
Would this view logically apply to the long history of the U.S.and the Barbary pirates and the Ottoman Empire? Could it be used in the reup to the U.S.Civil War? Could not the U.S.have bought out the slave owners as did the British?
I can agree with you for China, since it is preceived as a respectable power. For Hamas though, it would be entirely on-brand to simply take the money first. I think their fellow Gazans would respect them for it as well.
What Hamas won't do is sign on paper that they recognise Israel. The Palestinian Authority who sort of did that are considered traitors by many Palestinians, and taking changed the political role of the leaders involved substantially. If Hamas did that too, they likely would not be Hamas anymore.
how well did China honour the Hong Kong handover agreement with "two systems". Like most broken treaties, few are willing to pay the cost of undoing the broken treaty.
The PLO took a pile of shekels to officially endorse Zionism and it was, in fact, all a ploy to lower Israel's defenses.
And score some dough in the process.
In equilibrium, people don't bother to make claims they know nobody will believe.
It's ironic you cite the Night of the Long Knives, because Hitler actually DID double-cross numerous countries that he signed treaties with only to violate later!
Didn't Hamas get a ton of foreign aid and use it to build tunnels and buy weapons?
Very well put. I think it would also be a mistake to view some of these positions such as the PRC's One Child Policy or Hamas's antizionism as irrational. They're perfectly rational, once we accept that not all goals and value systems permit conversion to money/utils, because not all people and value systems view maximization of material prosperity as the highest good. Something does not have to be quantifiable to be rational. For many Chinese nationalists, for example, the unification and ascendancy of the Chinese people is the highest good and worth any material sacrifice, and likewise for Hamas and antizionism. When you share those views and goals, their pursuits are rational.
Another important point is that states are not actors; people are actors, and state decision-makers have personal motivations that often differ from the best interests of the states they lead.
This has seemingly nothing to do with the hit game Deadlock and I am deeply disappointed
Most of the first page of google images for the search term "deadlock" is the game. The only other kind was the poster for a (terrible) Bruce Willis movie so I don't think Bryan is a secret Valve fan.
Would this view logically apply to the long history of the U.S.and the Barbary pirates and the Ottoman Empire? Could it be used in the reup to the U.S.Civil War? Could not the U.S.have bought out the slave owners as did the British?