I’m writing this in response to two things, an oh-so reasonable article by yet another Israeli who wants an end to this godawful mess with a rational solution. He even calls it rational so we know that it’s rational: “A Rational Way Forward On Gaza.” Of course he does! Any rational person wants a rational solution to this.
The problem is that Hamas doesn’t, won’t, and never will respond the way he wants them to, nor will “the Arabs” do what he wants them to, no matter how many times he appears on Al Jazeera TV.
Not since Imperial Japan has the world seen a group so fanatically dedicated to a cause which they see as right, just, and moral. Since Israel cannot use nuclear weapons on Hamas, we have to think of a different way to change the equation.
The second thing is Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who has become a vitriolic critic of Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza.
I’m sad about this because I really like Taleb. I couldn’t care less about celebrity jerks like Guy Pearce or John Cusack, but when someone who is genuinely original, witty, and creative takes that road, I’m bummed.
He and I had a cordial relationship on X before he blocked me. And then I went of X entirely. I remember distinctly he had cautious but positive attitudes towards Israel and Jews. He’d write about the morphological similarities between “Phoenician” and Hebrew, etc. That’s all over. Now he’s full on “Jesus was a Palestinian” and Ashkenazi Jews are invaders, and shit like that.
I’m not going to be one of those petty, “I always hated him and thought his stuff was junk” types. I don’t. I think he’s a truly original thinker. Even when he pours old Phoenician wine into new American bottles, he does so in a unique way that makes you think twice. .
Also, I like his general anti-authoritarian, anti-expert manner. A few accounts ago, he and I had a friendly exchange on X about what a bunch of shit most music education is. He totally grasped why I thought it sucked, and why a cheap paperback handbook and this book by Slonimsky taught me more than any number of mind-numbing music theory tomes I was forced to choke down in classes did. He got it and I appreciated that.
Yeah, I’m sad. I think at his age, he won’t get over it. This is forever.
I’m afraid that it’s “au revoir, mon ami,” to N.N. Taleb.
So what could be better than using one of his core concepts to defeat Hamas?
Let’s talk about N. N. Taleb’s concept, Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder with reference to the Israel/Hamas war.
Israel’s enemies say it’s fragile. I say it’s tough with two signal weaknesses: its dependence on the US and “Shalitism,” the habit of dealing with terrorist for hostages.
Imagine going through what Israel has since October 7 and not going crazy. As if October 7 wasn’t enough, it was only the beginning of a barrage of blows that would flatten a fragile society: the Houthi attacks, the savage assaults on its legitimacy by the Western left, the realization that Russia/China are enemies and the threats from Iran, culminating but not ending in the foiled attack last April. A country that can withstand all that without going crazy is tough. It’s weaknesses are only human1.
But first, what is the concept of antifragility? The subtitle pretty much explains it, but here’s my understanding.
Glass is fragile. If you drop it, it shatters.
Rubber is resilient. If you drop a rubber ball, it bounces.
Let’s have a look at three kinds of forests with respect to antifragility and fires: temperate rainforests, oak, and wildfire-adapted.
Temperate rainforests, such as those found in parts of the Pacific Northwest, are typically very moist and do not experience frequent fires. When a fire does occur, it can be devastating due to the lack of fire-adapted species and the dense undergrowth. They are fire-fragile.
Oak forests usually don’t get destroyed by fire, but a truly blazing one can destroy an entire forest. They did not evolve to withstand massive fires. They are fire-resilient.
Then there are wildfire-adapted forests, the ones with pine trees that drop serotinous cones that stay sealed shut until a wildfire rips through—random, chaotic, destructive—are antifragile. The heat pops the cones open, spilling seeds into the ash, and the forest grows back denser and stronger than before. It doesn’t “plan” the fire or get better from some tidy challenge; it’s just built to cash in on the disaster when it hits.2 They are fire-antifragile.
Taleb’s wheelhouse is volatility, uncertainty, and unpredictable shocks — stuff that’s messy and out of control. Antifragile things or systems gain from chaos. They thrive because the world’s a crapshoot, not because they’ve overcome hurdles.
The key aspect is the crapshoot, not size of the hurdle. You can trip over a pebble or a tiny crack in the pavement and you’re dead or disabled. Just one little unexpected thing can upend your apple cart. An expected mountain doesn’t. It’s a challenge.
Here’s the kicker: antifragile entities don't just survive adverse events but actually require them to grow and improve.
As an abstract idea, antifragility is clean and sleek. It fits like a glove with nature — forests, animals, ecosystems — where chaos hits and something thrives without a whiff of intent on either side, not even survival, at least not for forests and ecosystems. Nature doesn’t “want” to destroy those trees and those trees don’t “want” to survive. They simply do in a process that “happens.”
Even as we learn animals might be capable of intention in ways that we’ve previously overlooked, and they do have the survival instinct, their antifragility still feels baked-in, not plotted out. (Although we could argue about whether animals are antifragile or resilient. But not now.) The key is that this process is not immoral, it’s a-moral, indifferent to right and wrong.
It’s when you apply antifragility to people that it gets tricky, because humans always bring intent, strategy, and messy motives into the mix. Suddenly we’re not talking about benefiting from accidental chaos. We’re talking about bringing it on, steering it, why, and at what cost. It’s not a spontaneous “oops, we got stronger.” It’s “we’ll create a mess to get better.” (Than whom?)
This can be interpreted as intentionally engaging with challenges and uncertainties to improve. It's not about creating chaos for the sake of it, but about recognizing that growth can only come from navigating and overcoming disruptions.
Embrace the suck, y’all.
That’s the optimistic side.
The pessimistic side is that bad actors will manufacture chaos, feeding off the disorder. The world weakens, they get stronger. Do you see where I’m going with this?
That’s where the concept starts to wobble — you can’t peel away the human element, and it risks twisting into something darker or more deliberate than Taleb’s pure definition.
For example, when I first heard about antifragility I thought, "Wow, that describes the Jews to a tee.” But then I thought, “Wait a minute. That’s the classic antisemitic trope — ‘those wily bastards always end up twice as strong as before the chaos. They must be behind it’.” And I pulled back.
I don’t think Jews benefit from chaos at all. Individual Jews might benefit from chaos — let’s be honest, every group has its devious opportunists3 — but as a whole, Jews do NOT benefit from chaos or instability.
Quite the contrary. Jews historically rose to positions of authority and wealth in stable societies and lost their status when chaos came. I guess antisemites work this into their crazy worldview (“they came back stronger than ever!”), but you and I aren’t crazy, so let’s not dwell on them.
A group of people might survive persecution and come out stronger after a period of recovery, but that doesn’t mean they invited it. Context matters. Also having a longer timeline.
While antifragility is a powerful concept, applying it to people or groups requires caution. It’s not a catch-all explanation for human behavior.
That said, I want to apply antifragility and resilience to Hamas and see whether there is a way out using its principles, not those of the good liberal who assumes that misery is to be avoided.
I see Hamas as being as close to an antifragile human organization as possible.
Hamas thrives in the wildfire of conflict; Israel’s the oak holding ground but not flourishing from the burn. How’s that land for you when it’s consistently under siege? Israel doesn’t gain strength from chaos; it just endures it, maybe even gets worn down over time by the constant grind.
Hamas doesn’t just handle a “challenge” like a tough day at the office; it feeds off the raw, uncontrollable mess of war and upheaval. Israel’s resilience, meanwhile, isn’t about gaining from that chaos—it’s about standing firm despite it. Hamas is built to invite randomness and shocks, not just avoid them.
It thrives in mess and disorder, feeds off instability, turning losses into propaganda wins, recruitment boosts, or global sympathy, which was precisely Sinwar’s strategy.
You all remember what the June 2024 Wall Street Journal reported. Sinwar described high civilian death tolls in Gaza as “necessary sacrifices.” More Palestinian casualties would ramp up international pressure on Israel, making it look bad and advancing Hamas’s cause. He was quoted as telling ceasefire negotiators and other Hamas figures that these deaths would “infuse life into the veins of this nation” and push it toward “glory and honor.”
You, a humane person, say chaos and loss is twisted. Sinwar saw it as leverage. If this isn’t antifragile what is?
What on earth can neutralize this?
Their weakness is right in their strength. If they require chaos to thrive, in times of stability they stagnate and degrade.
Stability starves them of the disorder they need to grow.
I’m going to end this here, abruptly, and leave it for a while, because I don’t have neat, easy answers to this issue. I am only presenting it for consideration.
I welcome comments.
Cards: I’m working on integrating these concepts with my core beliefs that UNRWA must be abolished, and the American Empire, of which I am a new fan, needs to do a regime change in Qatar.
Food for thought: maybe even antifragile entities can’t withstand too much chaos.
To be continued.
Hint:
Although they really must be dealt with at some point. Nor do I deny the internal divisions. But when they are challenged, they unite magnificently.
OK, it’s true that the wildfires will come — that part is predictable. But when and where? Unpredictable. Replicate this throughout nature ad infinitum. These are not actually “Black Swan” events as an asteroid strike is, but they are random and disruptive.
Rhett Butler and Scarlett O’Hara? I think Rhett was antifragile and Scarlett was resilient, but that’s me.