Reframing “Two-state” Possibilities

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 29 Jul 2024

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Beyond the Constraints of Disciplinary Frameworks in a Two-state Civilization

Introduction

29 Jul 2024 – There is no lack of references over an extensive period to “the” Israel-Palestine “two-state” solution. This has been brought dramatically into global focus through the unprecedented level of violence and destruction in Gaza — now upheld internationally and controversially as an instance of genocide. Examples include:

Various bodies provide a forum for discussion of the possibility, as with the Geneva Accord Coalition for a Two-State Solution (2021). Less evident is the comprehension of those who claim to support it in some manner, as with the government of Australia, as noted by Matthew Doran:

At its base level, the idea of “a two-state solution” is to formalise those territorial claims and some of the sticking points in the relationship between the two sides here — things like controversial Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory and control over the holy city of Jerusalem. (What does the government mean when it says it supports a two-state solution? ABC News, 10 April 2024)

The level of widely publicized violence in Gaza frames the question explored here, namely whether there is any more fruitful way of approaching a “two-state” solution, as evoked by the following, for example:

On the other hand there are many reference to the “death” and impossibility of the “two-state” solution — or its catastrophic consequences and miraculous revival — as for example:

In such a context it is appropriate to ask how “two state” is understood and evoked — and especially by whom and through what disciplinary lens. Given the apparent incapacity of those disciplines claiming unique relevance to reframing the challenge to civilization of “Israel-Palestine” — in a manner which evokes “new thinking” — it could be asked how “discipline” is then to be understood. Does a discipline simply provide the justification for what its practitioners are entitled to ignore in the execution of their profession? Given the specificity through which they define themselves, can disciplines even “think” in “global” terms — when faced with global crises? Do the disciplines claiming such relevance engage in any root cause analysis of their apparent ineptitude?

Given the frequency with which “two-state” is cited, such considerations evoke the question as to where research on the matter is actively funded and studied — and by what disciplines, with what agendas. What disciplines are ignored by some in the process as being unable to furnish insights of relevance? How is any dialogue on the possibility thereby undermined?

Where is such presumably vital research assembled for critical evaluation and inspiration? In the Bulletin of Peace Proposals? Given its apparent importance as a strategic opportunity, is there any indication that the situation has been the focus of sophisticated simulation to evoke previously unrecognized possibilities — other than the current use of AI for targeting purposes in Gaza? If not, why not? (Simulating the Israel-Palestine Conflict as a Strategy Game, 2023; Envisaging a Game of Subtlety Enabling New Global Dynamics, 2024).

The following exercise in interaction with two AIs (ChatGPT and Claude) is an effort to reframe the understanding of “two-state” from a variety of perspectives beyond those conventionally favoured in the literature — in the quest for insights that may otherwise have been systematically ignored.

The focus follows from earlier consideration of the challenge from the neglected perspective of mathematics (And When the Bombing Stops? Territorial conflict as a challenge to mathematicians, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 61, 1999). This was subsequently followed by consideration, with the aid of ChatGPT, of conventional dependence on “flat earth” thinking — ignoring insights of mathematics and physics (Neglect of Higher Dimensional Solutions to Territorial Conflicts, 2024).

Given the apparent inability of “Western” inspired disciplines to inform mediation of the Gaza situation, it is intriguing to note the current initiative from an “Eastern” perspective (Laurie Chen and Nidal Al-Mughrabi, China brokers Palestinian unity deal, but doubts persist , Reuters, 24 July 2024; Mohamad Zreik, China Mediates a New Era of Palestinian Unity, The Diplomat, 25 July 2024 ). This could be considered consistent with Coherent Reconciliation of Eastern and Western Patterns of Logic (2023) — a study facilitated by AI commentary. Ironically it is of course the case that China is faced with its own “two-state” challenge, as with the Koreas.

The wider perspective on “two-state”evoked in the following, frames the curious question as to whether humanity effectively dwells in a “two-state civilization” — which it has engendered and assiduously cultivates. This would reframe any assertions regarding the “death” of the “two-state solution” and its implications.

As in the previous experiments, the responses of ChatGPT are distinctively presented below in grayed areas, in parallel with those of Claude 3. Given the length of the document to which the exchange gives rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment — in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Web technology now enables the whole document to be held as a single “page” with only the “questions” to AI rendered immediately visible — a facility developed in this case with the assistance of both ChatGPT and Claude 3.

Reservations regarding this method of interaction with AI have been previously highlighted (Eliciting a Pattern that Connects with AI? 2024). These noted questionable styles of response readily characterized as “algorithmic enthusiasm” (or “synthetic appreciation”), together with presumptions of an anthropomorphized relationship by which the questioner is repeatedly flattered. These can be understood as a marketing technique to encourage engagement in the process or as formulaic courtesy deemed appropriate in some cultures. Whilst these could be edited out, as a feature of the experiment they have not been removed; responses have been minimally edited for format alone. The approach allows readers to repeat the questions at a later stage or to other AIs — possibly at a future time when their capacities have been further developed.

Of greater potential concern regarding the use of AI in this context is the questionable role of leading questions in eliciting responses deemed of value — in a period in which the undoubted capacity of AI to aggregate relevant information is now called into question by science (Joe Slater, et al, ChatGPT Isn’t ‘Hallucinating’ — It’s Bullshitting! Scientific American, 17 July 2024). Somewhat ironically such assertions occur in a period in which unprecedented numbers of academic papers are being retracted. In a period in which there is seemingly limited capacity to address global issues effectively, the proactive responses of AI contrast strangely with the dismissive style of academia (Richard Phelps, Dismissive literature reviews reduce understanding – so why do academics keep making them? LSE, 17 June 2024).

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org


Tags: , ,

Share this article:


DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.

Join the discussion!

We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.

+ 39 = 47

Note: we try to save your comment in your browser when there are technical problems. Still, for long comments we recommend that you copy them somewhere else as a backup before you submit them.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Read more

Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:

TRANSCEND MEMBERS: