Essay: 'Groking' the Hamas Endgame
Through the prism of ‘Suicide by Cop’, applied to an entire culture
First of all, don’t open this unless you can answer ‘yes’ to any one of the following 3 questions:
(1). you’re interested in ‘artificial intelligence’ and don’t mind learning and reviewing an AI example with me on this Substack.
-or-
(2). you’re interested in Israel, Hamas or Gaza.
-or-
(3) you’re curious as to what I might say.
Otherwise, close this email, and move on. This Substack won’t be for you.
But if you are going to stay with me, and persevere, and get to the end, then please answer my poll to *why* you apparently have read this Substack. Please place the number ‘1’, ‘2’, or ‘3’ — (or ‘?’) — in the ‘Comments’ box.. The numbers will correspond to the answers above, (whereas a ‘?’ simply means you either don’t know or would rather not say — it’s okay). While I’m at it, please also note that there is a ‘Like’ button near the ‘Comments’ box. (I have heard some people say that this button functions here in Substack like the ‘Tip Can’ does at Van Leeuwen's ice cream on Amsterdam… Well, that’s what I heard.)
If you got this far, then you need to be aware that this Substack post contains a linked ‘attachment’ entitled ‘Transcript of Dialog with Grok‘. (That’s the link.) It’s here to function as a footnote; meaning it’s present here for completeness sake, it does not ‘need’ to be read. This transcript attachment runs to 5200 words, or almost 10-12 single-spaced printed pages. *You Do Not Need To Read It!* In fact, you shouldn’t read it, (unless you can’t resist). Mind you, it’s ‘worth’ reading; it’s well done and informative, tightly organized, but I’m very biased as I’m particularly interested in the topic. (It may be too much for you. Yes, you don’t have to read it, but you really should *scroll* through it.) If you take a look at it, and I recommend you do so, just click or tap the link to call the attachment up. When you close it, you should return to this page, (if all works well).
This footnote or linked ‘attachment’ is the ‘transcript’ of my dialog with the AI chatbot ‘Grok’, regarding the current endgame of the war in Gaza, and exploring my idea that among the factors leading to better understanding Gaza is the phenomena of ‘Suicide by Cop’ — with the IDF cast in the unlucky role of cop.
This 12 page footnote or transcript contains my questions to ‘Grok’, in italics. followed by Grok’s answers. Approximately 6% of the transcript are my questions to Grok, while the remainder consists of its answers. [Q: “Grok, when I refer to you in the third tense, what pronoun should I use?” A: “In the third person, you can use ‘it’ for me, as I'm an AI without a gender. So, you'd say something like, ‘Grok is helpful because it gives clear answers.’ That works perfectly!”
What’s My Purpose Here?
Rarely do we find a *single purpose* behind any action; in my case, I have two. The first is to discuss AI, for that is my topic, (‘Groking’ the Hamas Endgame). I want to try to explain how Grok works, why it might be useful, its drawbacks, etc. It’s a look at a specific AI app — or AI ‘critter’, as I like to think of Grok, and the other ‘chatbot’ I am familiar with, ChatGPT.
My second purpose stems from a conscious choice of mine to discuss the ‘Hamas Endgame’. This Substack in my ‘white board’ set up in front, where I can demonstrate and discuss my ideas regarding Hamas and the Gaza endgame as I explain how I use Grok. I will point to the whiteboard and try to convince you (with Grok’s quiet but logically driven assistance) that there is a factor involved in the events of Gaza following 10/7 that has not been noticed, but should; because it helps us understand Hamas’s philosophy and actions. It also explains in part why Hamas has achieved such success in the world with its propaganda. All these results become more understandable when we consider Hamas’s actions with the added dynamics of a ‘Suicide by Cop’ event, and why the Gaza war will probably wind down the way it will.
Keep in mind that I am discussing with Grok my view that one of Hamas’s motivating forces has not been considered. You can’t argue that I have set up Grok as a kind of ‘straw man’ to amplify my arguments. If so, what better straw man? Grok, being a machine, has to think things through logically. Grok is our Mr. Spock; it is not under our control, and it is open as to why it has its opinions and where they come from. Even if it is programmed to avoid making judgements, telling us what or who is right and what or who is wrong, Grok still can be of assistance. I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say Grok (and similar chatbots) will lead us more closely to the truth, (in an italicized philosophic sense.) Chatbots will be worth knowing about, for people who prize thinking. Chatbots will be worth taking the time to rack up flight hours behind the stick, gaining experience.
Let me quickly dispense with Elon Musk, lately a heavy presence in the news. Yes, Musk owns xAI that built Grok. However, Musk — with all his money and power — cannot, even theoretically, change the manner by which Grok operates or answers, without the world almost instantly becoming aware.
On Wednesday morning, the editor David Horovitz had an Op-Ed in the ‘Times of Israel’, entitled ‘Who’s shooting whom near Rafah’s aid center, and who’s exploiting the bloodshed’. In it, he goes on, in perfect logical detail, to explain how Hamas keeps exploiting events for propaganda value while Israel’s government, army, leadership, etc., after over 600 days of war, is seemingly unable to counter. Finally, clearly exasperated, he ends up blaming Israel for remaining incompetent despite being warned continuously.
If the consequences of failing to account for my posited scenario, ‘Suicide by Cop’, has resulted in more confusion, (which I believe it does), then that doesn’t help Horovitz’s complaint. Yes, the people countering Hamas’s propaganda are doing a poor job; but nothing better (as I see it) is even theoretically possible, given the many forces and confusions at play. Israel is fighting an uphill battle in the sphere of open public support. There’s just too much emotional gratification involved in being Pro-Palestinian that it’s bound to subsume the modest intellectual pleasure of clearly understanding something. Why am I so certain of my ideas? Because there is a clear mental health component that comes into play and few people have spent decades in a psychiatric practice to detect it. I simply write from experience.
Hamas — like every entity, individual or group — acts from a multiplicity of motives (or force vectors) that underly its every action. Only by summing all its motivational effects can we even begin to understand Hamas’s reasons for doing what it does. Self-destructive irrational impulses like ‘Suicide by Cop’ do not represent Hamas’s entire array of motivational forces behind its actions — but failing to account for its presence early and clearly, amps up sympathy for Hamas and puts Israel at a massive disadvantage — in which young romantics like Greta Thunberg, sailing toward Gaza, can exploit Hamas’s suffering for the world’s headlines and be exploited by Hamas in turn.
Who or what is Grok?
Let’s back up a second and I’ll tell you. But consider, I am writing about this chatbot, Grok, which is a form of AI, and is a topic that I’m trying to cover here. Where did the word, ‘grok’, come from? Why not ask Grok and again, demonstrate the procedure.
Me:
”Tell me about the origin of the word, ‘grok’.”Grok:
”The word ‘grok’ originates from Robert A. Heinlein's 1961 science fiction novel Stranger in a Strange Land. It’s a Martian term, coined by Heinlein, meaning to deeply understand or empathize with something or someone, often in a profound, almost intuitive way. In the novel, humans struggle to grasp the concept because it reflects a Martian way of thinking that blends comprehension with emotional connection. The word has since entered English vernacular, especially in tech and sci-fi circles, to describe a deep, holistic understanding. No earlier etymology exists since it’s a fictional creation.”
I can follow up Grok’s report by informing you that a chatbot, ‘Grok’, was released by Elon Musk’s X/Twitter in November of 2024, and was later upgraded in February 2025. ‘Grok’ is how I list it in my browser, ‘Safari’. I added it in my ‘Bookmarks’ under ‘AI ChatBots’ with another chatbot, ‘ChatGPT’. I currently use both.
(I’ve included the URL’s in case you want to check them out.) I think both are good and both have problems. You need to be aware of their capacity for error if you are going to use them. (Their error capacity, at times monumental, is the topic of my next Substack.)
As to whether there are actual differences between the two, I have tested them back to back, and initially found nothing of substance. But later I asked Grok what it thought. Grok thought there was a difference between itself and ChatGPT, but to see exactly what it said, you’ll have to go to the transcript and read its words yourself. (Use the link above to get to the transcript; do a search for ‘chat’, which will get you to the proper place or paragraph.)
When I read Grok’s answer (as you can do)… and… thought about it, I came around to its line of reasoning. Looking back, I sensed that ChatGPT was somewhat more ‘diffident’ when it came to sensitive or controversial topics. In my case, that usually meant Israel and the Palestinians, etc. In hindsight, summing all my impressions, I believe that ChatGPT was *unduly* soft and mushy. In any case, I’ve decided to stick with Grok, but I remain open and am not fixed.
My final reason to prefer Grok is that I do a lot of ‘cutting and pasting’ in my work; when I need to transfer information between apps, I find Grok more compatible and convenient, (given my computer and its system). Therefore, unless I indicate otherwise, when I say ‘AI’, I am referring specifically to Grok.
Well, What do I mean by ‘AI’?
By now, most everyone knows AI means ‘Artificial Intelligence’. However, few have any idea what the hell that really means. I, myself, can honestly say that I only have a dim understanding of the technology behind it.
Nonetheless, even in its infancy, I viewed AI as the world’s largest and most searchable library. (Actually it’s ‘systems' or constellations of categorized and linked information.) Any AI, or more specifically, any ‘chatbot’, like Grok or ChatGPT, is an entry to a font of knowledge — unparalleled in ease and completeness — available to any ‘researcher’; academic, or dilettante like myself .
I believe that AI will do to *thought* what the industrial revolution did to *muscle*. Changes will occur dramatically and will make those of the industrial revolution seem rather small by comparison. Yes, there will be terrible societal knock-on effects as AI gets established; but I am optimistic that these side effects and growing pains will be handled without undue difficulty or hardship. In any event, the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks by an order of magnitude. Humanity will be that much more ‘ahead’.
I believe AI’s application will result in the loss of many jobs, it’s true. But many more will be created. Already today’s (Sunday’s) New York Times has a front page story above the fold, ‘A.I. on Campus: Casting Chatbot As Study Buddy’, which outlines how AI will work in universities. It’s easy to see how corporations will install a human ‘AI translator’ or fixer at the end of their maddeningly inefficient 800 numbers to help us fill out the increasingly necessary (and utilitarian) online forms.
So far, I think everything I have said about AI has been ‘in bounds’; optimistic it’s true, but reasonable and arguable. However, I can easily let myself go. I can see my thoughts about AI travel up to zones ‘poetic’ — nearly scraping up against ‘insane’ — like seeing a *species*, (not an individual), develop a ‘planet-wide interactive’ neurological system, using components like AI software, silicone memory cheaply available in the ‘cloud’, and a satellite-anchored ever-present Internet. Something like this has never happened before in life’s entire evolution on earth. The only comparison I can make is when a worm-like clump of cells slithered out of the mud to show off the first prototypical nervous system — and we see what *that* flowered into, Mr. Darwin!
AI will be embraced, but cautiously… as it should be. However, I believe in the end we will be confident that AI’s developers have delivered what they promised — something “safe, transparent, and aligned with human values”. It is ‘open’ for all to see. No one person can control it. Not only are there ample safeguards and alarms, but more importantly, the methodology of its construction makes it impossible for a single locus or grouping to dominate. I am not an expert in any of this, but applying any experience I have — from 1978 (and the Radio Shack TRS-80), to the present — that’s what I have come to believe.
Summary of My Dialog with Grok
Here I’m going to try to summarize my dialog with Grok to save you the trouble of reading it in its entirety. (Just a reminder; it’s available above, with directions.)
Question 1:
I started by asking Grok to summarize its definition of the term ‘Suicide by Cop’, and Grok included the essentials: …a situation …law enforcement provoked …suicide intent. (It’s rarely seen but still can make headlines and stories, even if briefly.) I was entirely satisfied with Grok’s definition; it underlined what I thought was a central idea; that the police are *forced* to respond with deadly force. It’s not that they want to kill the guy, they just are offered no choice in the matter.
Question 2:
In its simplest form, SbC (Suicide by Cop) describes a ‘person’, who — intending to end his life, (and perhaps unable to pull the trigger himself), *can* end it (commit a kind of suicide) by arranging for an outside force to do the deed. In our society today, that force is usually a cop. I wanted to discuss and understand the implication of trying to apply a motivational factor from the individual to the group. How would the dynamics of SbC affect a *grouping* of individuals with a common ideology; be it a tribe, a society, a culture, or any other group of people.
In the individual sense, the ‘cop’ is picked at random. He is a faceless agent, who will nonetheless suffer. Chance puts him in a scenario that rarely comes with any accolades, the cop is rarely a hero, just the opposite. Using Hamas as my group example, given that Israel is so hated, (whether justified or not), how much easier is it for Hamas to exercise the SbC impulse and thereby injure Israel.
If self-destructively killing Jews offers an escape for the humiliating corrosive effects of ‘dishonor’; if killing them can be positively linked to an ideology that sees death as an idealized form of martyrdom — if these things hold for a particular group, how much more likely will it make use of a SbC impulse. A paranoid view of Israel and the Jews, stoked by intense antisemitism, will facilitate its application. In this regard, Hamas in Gaza, by means of its 10/7 atrocities has orchestrated a perfect storm of outside deadly force, with the IDF in the role of cop, reluctant or not. It’s a perfect set up for those in the West who will be moved by Gaza’s suffering, (moved beyond their own reason), and who may well end up supporting Hamas’s effort to destroy Israel, at minimum; or perhaps Jews in general.
So for all these considerations, I wanted to begin my discussion about ‘Suicide by Cop’ with Grok by establishing that SbC described in individuals was nonetheless applicable to Hamas by analogy, and I asked Grok to tell me, “where the analogy holds and where it doesn’t. You have 1000 words”.
Grok answered with careful consideration of my question. It gave me 4 lines of evidence ‘Where the Analogy Holds’, and 5 where the analogy breaks down. Finally Grok gave me some ‘Nuances and Context’ and then provided a ‘Conclusion’ (after 614 words). (Again you can read it for yourself.) I thought listing all these variables was important. Grok’s conclusion was that basically the thing is complex. Grok’s conclusion left *me* — as it should — with the responsibility of assigning differing weights or ‘hefts’ of the many variables; it was left to me to determine which variables ‘covary’ (in a statistical sense) and thereby cancel out one another’s effects. Grok was inconclusive at the end, limping away finally, advising me that any “analogy must be applied cautiously to avoid distorting the conflict’s deeper roots and stakes.” Nonetheless, I believed there was ample objective information, for a reasonable person to make up his or her mind.
Question 3:
There had been a number of news story’s about the family members of Hamas’s leaders dying in Israeli strikes, with Israel charged with acting disproportionately to genocidally. I wanted to explore with Grok how Hamas’s willingness to die, and expose their family to danger, plays into Hamas’s martyrdom impulse, (with obvious links to SbC dynamics). I asked Grok to comment on these deaths, “What was quoted in the media when Ismail Haniyeh, (head of Hamas's political bureau and later assassinated by Israel in Tehran), was told that two of his adult children were killed by Israeli air strikes in Gaza.”
Grok proceeded to correct me: The were no reports of ‘two deaths’; instead, “the sources primarily report on the deaths of three of his adult sons—Hazem, Amir, and Mohammad Haniyeh—along with four of his grandchildren, killed in an Israeli airstrike on April 10, 2024, in the Al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza City.” Grok then proceeded to give me examples of Haniyah’s quotes:
“I thank God for this honor that he bestowed upon us with the martyrdom of my three sons and some grandchildren. With this pain and blood, we create hopes, a future, and freedom for our people, our cause, and our nation.”
and
“The enemy believes that by targeting the families of the leaders, it will push them to give up the demands of our people. Anyone who believes that targeting my sons will push Hamas to change its position is delusional.”
Grok went on to tell me, “These quotes were widely circulated in media reports, including Al Jazeera, Reuters, BBC, CNN, and CBS News, reflecting Haniyeh’s public response while he was visiting a hospital in Doha, Qatar, treating wounded Palestinians. The moment he received the news was also captured in posts on X, emphasizing his stoic reaction and framing the deaths as martyrdom for the Palestinian cause.”
Of course, some (like me), interpreted Haniyeh’s response as indicative of a ‘death-cult mentality,’ while others portrayed it as a noble ‘steadfast commitment to the cause’. The ‘Resistance’ movements (Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi’s, and parts of Iran’s government) always celebrate ‘steadfastness’ as a wonderful laudatory impulse, something to be proud of. I do not deny that I have always seen it as a euphemism for a death-cult mentality.
Question 4:
I thanked Grok for correcting me as far as who in Haniyeh’s family died. Then I asked Grok if it was “unreasonable for me to apply the thoughts and feelings of the civilian head of Hamas to bolster my contention that the organization’s culture can fit into a ‘SbC’ scenario by analogy?”
Grok was, I thought, somewhat mealy mouthed in response. My question, it said, was ‘not unreasonable’, but required ‘careful nuance’; was ‘complex’, touching on ‘collective motivations versus individual psychology’.
The big ‘However’, came when Grok told me that Hamas, as a collective, “operates with strategic goals” — and political survival, regional influence, and challenging Israel’s occupation are some of them — as evidenced by “its ceasefire negotiations and external alliances with Iran and Qatar. Haniyeh’s stoic response, while suggestive of fatalism, also reflected a calculated narrative to rally support and maintain legitimacy, not merely a desire for organizational demise.” Unlike an SbC individual, Grok told me, “Hamas seeks to persist, as seen in its infrastructure like tunnels and media campaigns, which contrasts with the terminal intent of SbC”. Perhaps back in January, an intent to endure was a stronger argument. Now as we approach the endgame in Gaza, this conclusion has lost some of its prior heft. In short, I wasn’t impressed with Grok’s arguments. You can check it out and make up your own mind. (Above, etc.)
Besides, while Grok may concur that actions can have many different antecedents and motivations; however — my ‘However’ — being able to make a list of antecedents does not automatically prevent Grok from ordering and prioritizing them as far as *impact* or weight. Nonetheless, the way the software must be written for these AI chatbots probably does. Since Grok is prevented, it falls back to the reader, the ‘human’, with his or her limited cerebral apparatus to so ‘order and prioritize’ them.
I was impressed with Grok’s ability to call forth a prior interaction from its memory, ‘from our January 2025 conversation’, that I had forgotten, in order to support its argument that Hamas’s “provocations aim for symbolic or political gains, not just self-destruction”. I believe that ability to remember a prior conversation from a particular human ‘dialog-ee’ may be another difference between Grok and ChatGPT; an ability to track you, the human participant in a dialog, available, in memory. (Thank you Grok. Another instance where I find I can trust you more than myself. That does not obviate the rule, ‘trust, but verify’.)
Anyway, people and groups can have multiple reasons for any action: wanting to sacrifice oneself in the service of a particular form of Islam; and wanting to triumph over hated enemies, may appear incompatible when they are logically examined, but if your measuring stick is based on delusions and psychotic thinking, these ideas may seem perfectly reasonable and compatible.
Further Questions:
I’m not going to try and summarize the remaining 2 or 3 questions. I had asked Grok how ChatGPT would answer these questions and if different, to what extent. I also inquired if others had written about SbC and Hamas; and if not, why. Grok’s answers are available on the transcript.
Concluding Remarks: (1) On the *process* of ‘testing’ ideas against Grok and (2) How Grok’s arguments about ‘Suicide by Cop’ seem to stand up under scrutiny. (These are separate issues.)
(1) Jousting with Grok in general. (The process).
I found my discussion with Grok in the transcript above to be stimulating and enlightening. I hope you believe as I do that *truth* can only be found by weighing the arguments of all sides; that truth is always the compilation of *many* factors or variables. Some of these variables are simple and elementary: a stimulus produces a response; a basic feature of being alive. Some are much more subtle, like ‘nuances’ and ‘context’. In seeing truth as analogous to a multivariate equation, (only by analogy), I contend that the equation’s simple components, i.e., stimulus -> response, will be the most powerful, carrying the most ‘weight’. In the recent Israel-Hamas context, it means attacking suddenly, without warning, killing a thousand and taking a quarter thousand hostage back across the ‘line of control’, (to use an India-Pakistan analogy). By contrast, variables like ‘nuances’ and ‘contexts’ will be weak and much lighter in weight. Furthermore, they will be more numerous, easily duplicated, and will tend to co-vary with one another and can easily cancel each other out.
I thought Grok’s arguments were all valid; Grok made up nothing (like propaganda) and told no outright lies that I could see. I thought that Grok was rather complete in suggesting variables underlying actions that I might have overlooked.
I remain an optimist about this new technology. I think that AI — these chatbots, these cloud connected internet critters (‘Grok’ and ‘ChatGPT’ with others already here and more coming) will be great mental *tools* for us. They will lighten our work and at the same time augment the power of our frontal lobes and higher brain centers. Having discussed my ideas with Grok, am I stronger in my beliefs? I think I am. In the end, anyone who reads the transcript (and can think) will make up their own mind.
(2). Groks’ response to my specific idea that ‘Suicide by Cop’ is a meaningful motivating factor; and the impact of failing to see it.
The bottom line is that much the world, and many in the West, insist on viewing the actions of Hamas (and all the ‘Resistance’ movements) as being the end products of logical and rational decisions — when they are clearly *not*. No evidence to the contrary — the history of Hamas’s prior actions, the words of Hamas’s Charter, actual video clips of Hamas’s leaders on what they plan to do — seems to stick! No one seems impressed with the ‘human shield’ argument despite its clear applicability. One ‘smoking gun’ after another, all evidence of malign intent, all flashing light indicators of mistrust are rejected as having no weight. While pure antisemitism is often cited as the reason for this, even that hazy all-inclusive atmosphere seems insufficient an explanation.
I contend that Hamas is a toxic mixture of incompatible motivations and ideas; that a failure to see its activities as irrational and frankly insane — like a madman shooting at police in order to be certain of death — sidelines reason and logic to the bench! The argument ends up on a *rational* field of battle, and not the insanity pitch where it belongs.
I have seen how the world thinks about the ‘nuances’ and ‘context’ between Israel and Gaza. I would predict that *if* Hamas decides to give up and negotiate a surrender, (or ‘victory’ as it will surely be labeled) — and asks for a safe supervised international departure from Gaza, Israel will grant that request, like Beirut in 1982. (Who else does that? Did the Germans hold their fire at Dunkirk? Did Russians let Germans out of Stalingrad?) And if Hamas does *not* give up, as I believe it will not, what label will the world give the camps that Israel will set up to hold the survivors of final battles, while AI assisted commissions try to establish individual responsibility?
No matter what happens with the endgame in Gaza, I am certain that Israel will debate openly and act appropriately in the cause of justice, albeit short of perfection. None of this will be appreciated by many large media outlets in the West.
?