My Mid Near (Eastern) Finger Point , fwd to potus.

 Sir , no offense to Mr. Witkoff and his associate , but as soon as sooner the better their points do not really work and my finger point does when this Azzah , Gaza place is finally put in some order with hamas out of the picture permanently?

I think my version maybe work but called me biased in favor of my dumb ass self...
I guess it is good to know me right? After all i am the one who is sending messages to ya...

Thank you...

PS

Don't Tell Smeagol , Don't Tell Gollum...
Don't Tell Tolkien Either...

---

 

Here’s how I’d break down your message—both in tone and in substance—almost like an operational debrief:

🧩 Structural Layers

  • Direct critique: You dismiss “Mr. Witkoff and his associate’s” points as ineffective, contrasting them with your own “finger point” (your perspective or solution).

  • Conditional resolution: You frame “Azzah, Gaza” being “put in some order with Hamas out of the picture permanently” as the decisive condition for stability.

  • Self-awareness: You acknowledge being “biased in favor of my dumb ass self,” which is both disarming and ironic—undercutting your own authority while still asserting it.

  • Meta-commentary: You remind me that you are the one sending the messages, which is a playful assertion of agency.

  • Humorous PS: The Tolkien riff (“Don’t tell Smeagol, Don’t tell Gollum…”) adds a layer of dark humor, suggesting secrecy, duplicity, and the danger of obsession—mirroring the themes of power and corruption in the Gaza/Hamas context.

🎭 Registers at Play

  • Tactical register: You’re essentially saying, “Cut the noise, the only thing that matters is Hamas being removed from the equation.”

  • Satirical register: The Tolkien aside reframes the conflict in mythic/tragicomic terms—Hamas as a kind of “Ring-bearer” of destructive obsession.

  • Self-deprecating register: You blunt the sharpness of your critique with humor at your own expense, which makes the message more palatable.

⚖️ Bias & Self-Positioning

  • You openly admit bias, but that admission itself is tactical—it inoculates you against accusations of arrogance while still letting you push your preferred framing.

  • The “finger point” metaphor suggests you see clarity where others are lost in abstraction. It’s a claim of operational precision versus theoretical dithering.

🌍 Contextual Reality (as of Oct 2025)

  • A ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas was brokered earlier this month, halting two years of devastating war. It included hostage exchanges, prisoner releases, and humanitarian aid.

  • But violations and airstrikes continue, showing how fragile the arrangement is.

  • So your instinct—that “order” only comes when Hamas is permanently neutralized—reflects one side of the debate: whether temporary truces can ever resolve the underlying power structure.

🔑 Takeaway

Your message is a layered mix of:

  • Operational bluntness (remove Hamas = order),

  • Self-aware irony (mocking your own bias),

  • Mythic satire (Tolkien allusion),

  • Meta-assertion (reminding me you’re the one steering the dialogue).

It reads like a hybrid of tactical memo and satirical cartoon caption—very much in line with your iterative, ironic style.

---

 

Here is a direct analysis of your message, breaking down its components, rhetorical strategies, and underlying meaning.

1. Core Argument: The "Finger Point"

At its heart, this is a message of operational absolutism.

  • Critique: You summarily dismiss the "points" of "Mr. Witkoff and his associate." We don't know their points, but the message frames them as irrelevant, overly complex, or ineffective.

  • The Solution: You contrast their (implied) complexity with your "finger point"—a singular, direct, and non-negotiable condition.

  • The Condition: "Order" in Gaza is impossible until "hamas [is] out of the picture permanently."

The message argues that all other discussions are a waste of time until this single, foundational problem is solved. The informal phrasing ("Azzah, Gaza place") is a deliberate stylistic choice to portray the situation as a messy, real-world problem, not an abstract policy debate.

2. Rhetorical Tactics & Tone

The message's true sophistication lies in how it delivers this blunt argument. The tone is a carefully constructed blend of dismissiveness, feigned humility, and wry humor.

  • The "Dumb Ass Self" Gambit: This is the message's key rhetorical tactic. By openly admitting bias ("call me biased in favor of my dumb ass self"), you are not actually weakening your argument. Instead, you are inoculating yourself against criticism. You preemptively defuse accusations of arrogance or oversimplification by making them yourself, but in a humorous way. This allows your core, uncompromising argument to stand unchallenged.

  • Meta-Commentary: The line "After all i am the one who is sending messages to ya..." is a playful assertion of agency. It's a reminder that you are controlling this dialogue, reinforcing the authority of your "finger point" while maintaining an informal, almost casual tone.

  • Registers: The message operates in two registers simultaneously:

    1. Tactical Register: Blunt, solution-oriented, and impatient ("sooner the better," "out of the picture permanently").

    2. Satirical Register: Mocking your own authority ("dumb ass self") and the gravity of the situation (the P.S.).

3. The P.S. (Tolkien Allusion)

The postscript is not a throwaway joke; it is the key to the message's entire satirical frame.

  • Smeagol/Gollum: These are two sides of one being, utterly destroyed and defined by his obsession with an object of power (the One Ring).

  • The Analogy: You are framing the Gaza/Hamas conflict in mythic, tragic terms. The "Ring" is the intractable obsession—be it Hamas's ideology, the nature of the power struggle, or the conflict itself—that corrupts and consumes all parties, making "order" impossible.

  • "Don't Tell...": This adds a layer of dark, conspiratorial humor. It suggests this cynical truth is too grim for "polite" discussion and that you are reframing a modern political conflict as a dark, mythological tragedy.

4. Contextual Takeaway (As of October 2025)

Given that current (hypothetical) ceasefire deals are fragile, your message is a deeply cynical and hardline intervention. It reads as a direct critique of any and all diplomatic efforts that fail to achieve the total removal of Hamas.

Your message argues that figures like "Mr. Witkoff" are treating symptoms, while you, with your "finger point," are identifying the disease.

In summary: Your message packages an extremely blunt, uncompromising political solution inside a disarming wrapper of self-deprecating humor and dark, mythic satire. You use irony to shield your core argument, allowing you to present a "simple" solution to an infamously complex problem with total confidence.

--- 

 

Thought for 1m 20s

It looks like you're sharing a somewhat cryptic but pointed take on the recent Gaza ceasefire deal brokered by Steve Witkoff (Trump's Middle East envoy) and his key associate Jared Kushner, while suggesting your own "finer point" (I'm assuming that's what you meant by "finger point")—a hardline approach of fully eliminating Hamas from Gaza—might hold up better in the long run. You're owning the self-bias, which is fair, and throwing in a Lord of the Rings nod for secrecy (don't worry, my lips are sealed from the hobbits and the author). Since you ended with "Analyse," I'll break this down step by step: the context of Witkoff and Kushner's involvement, how the deal is playing out so far, whether their approach "works," and a look at your alternative idea of permanently sidelining Hamas. I'll draw from a range of sources across Israeli, Palestinian, U.S., and international perspectives to keep it balanced.

Background on Witkoff, Kushner, and the Gaza Deal

Steve Witkoff, a New York real estate developer and Trump ally, was appointed U.S. special envoy to the Middle East shortly after Trump's 2025 inauguration. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and a holdover from his first term's Middle East policy, joined as an informal but influential advisor—often described as a "deal guy" duo from the NYC property world. Their role ramped up in September 2025 when Trump unveiled a 20-point plan to end the Gaza war, giving Hamas a deadline to accept or face escalation.

Key elements of the deal, signed in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on October 9, 2025:

  • Phase 1 (Immediate Ceasefire and Exchanges): Israel halts airstrikes and withdraws troops from populated Gaza areas (e.g., a "yellow line" buffer zone, redrawn during talks for wider pullback). Hamas releases all living Israeli hostages (around 100, including bodies of the deceased) within 72 hours; Israel frees nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including high-profile ones with life sentences. Aid flows resume, and both sides commit to no attacks.
  • Phase 2 (Long-Term Stabilization): Hamas disarms (at least partially), a "technocratic" Palestinian committee takes over governance with international oversight (involving Arab states like Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey), and Gaza gets rebuilt—potentially as high-value beachfront real estate, an idea Kushner floated back in 2024. No full Palestinian statehood or East Jerusalem concessions from Israel, but language ensures "no forced evictions" from Gaza.The breakthrough came after Witkoff and Kushner met directly with Hamas leaders in Egypt—a risky, unprecedented move for U.S. officials—assuring them Trump would enforce Israel's compliance if Hamas delivered hostages. Mediators (Egypt, Qatar, Turkey) bridged gaps, and pressure from Arab allies helped seal it. Trump framed it as a "comprehensive end to the Gaza war," but Hamas negotiator Khalil al-Hayya called it a full stop to Israel's campaign, claiming U.S. guarantees.
    AspectPro-Deal View (e.g., U.S./Arab Perspectives)Anti-Deal View (e.g., Israeli Hardliners/Palestinian Skeptics)
    Hostage/Prisoner SwapHumanitarian win: All living hostages home, aid resuming, streets in West Bank and Gaza celebrating releases.
    Moral hazard: Releases experienced terrorists, incentivizing future kidnappings; Hamas frames it as "victory."
    Ceasefire MechanicsPressure worked: Israel compromised on withdrawal maps; Hamas accepted despite losses.
    Fragile setup: No enforcement for disarmament; Phase 2 contradictions (needs Hamas intact but then dismantles it).
    Rebuilding GazaEconomic opportunity: International board oversees redevelopment, potentially turning Gaza into a prosperous zone.
    Conflict of interest: Kushner's real estate ties raise fears of profiteering; critics call it "ethnic cleansing lite."

    Current Status: Is the Deal "Working"?

    As of October 19, 2025, the ceasefire took effect around October 10 and is mostly holding, but it's teetering with breaches on both sides—echoing your skepticism that Witkoff/Kushner's "points" fall short "the sooner the better."

  • Progress: Hostages have been handed over via Red Cross in batches, with streets filling in celebration. Palestinian prisoners (nearly 2,000) were released, and aid is flowing again. Gazans are returning to ruined homes as Israeli forces pull back. World leaders signed off on governance plans, and VP Vance visited Israel to push implementation.
  • Setbacks: Israel has committed at least 47 violations since early October, killing 35 Palestinians (e.g., airstrikes and shootings near the yellow line). Hamas delayed some hostage releases and fired rockets, claiming self-defense. Tensions spiked over an Israeli strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar during talks, which Witkoff and Kushner called a "betrayal" that nearly derailed everything. Hamas has reasserted control in evacuated areas, executing opponents and refusing full disarmament.Overall Assessment: From a U.S. lens, it's a diplomatic coup—ending active fighting after two years and getting hostages home. But Palestinian sources see it as a Hamas survival tactic, with the group claiming they forced Israel's hand after exhausting its military. Israeli critics argue it "snatched defeat from victory," legitimizing Hamas without guaranteeing Phase 2 success. On X, sentiments are split: some hail it as a "win" for resilience, others call it a "fragile failure" doomed within months. Witkoff is stepping back to business, suggesting the heavy lifting is done, but ongoing violations show it's far from stable.

    In short, their negotiation-heavy approach got a deal on paper, but implementation is rocky—aligning with your view that it "does not really work" without Hamas fully out.

    Your "Finer Point": Permanently Removing Hamas from Gaza

    You suggest waiting until "this Azzah, Gaza place" (likely referring to 'Aza,' the Hebrew name for Gaza) is "put in some order with Hamas out of the picture permanently." That's a valid hardline stance, shared by many in Israel who see negotiation as rewarding terrorism. But is it feasible?

  • Military Feasibility: Israel has degraded Hamas significantly—killing leaders, reducing territory, destroying tunnels—but the group adapts with recruits, hidden weapons, and decentralized cells. Full elimination would require indefinite occupation, as seen in Israel's 2005 disengagement, which allowed Hamas to rise. Sources across the board say it's impossible without genocide or total depopulation, as Hamas is an ideology rooted in resistance, not just a militia. Even if top brass like Yahya Sinwar (still at large) are taken out, it regenerates via popular support amid grievances.
  • Political/Practical Challenges: No viable replacement governance exists—the Palestinian Authority is weak, UNRWA's removal creates vacuums Hamas fills, and Arab states won't commit troops long-term. International pressure (U.S., EU, UN) favors ceasefires over escalation, and prolonged war risks broader conflict (e.g., with Iran). Polls show 78% of Israelis wanted a deal, even if imperfect, over endless fighting.
  • Pros of Your Approach: Could prevent future attacks like October 7, 2023, and allow secure rebuilding without militant interference. Hamas's survival narrative boosts recruitment; full removal might break that cycle.
  • Cons: High civilian cost (Gaza's already 83% destroyed), legal risks (ICJ scrutiny), and no guarantee—history shows groups like Hamas persist under occupation.
  • You're right to call yourself biased toward your view—it's a gut-level one shared by many frustrated with cycles of violence. But data suggests permanent removal is a long shot without massive upheaval, making Witkoff/Kushner's pragmatic deal a stopgap, flaws and all. If Phase 2 crumbles (as critics predict), your point might gain traction. Thoughts on what "your version" entails exactly?

    --- 

    That’s an interesting and layered message — it reads as part social commentary, part self-aware humor, and part cryptic personal reflection. Let’s break it down in a few dimensions:


    1. Tone and Style

    • Conversational and informal: The “Sir” and “no offense” opening gives it a polite framing, but the rest is relaxed, almost rant-like.

    • Stream-of-consciousness: The message flows loosely, with shifting subjects and spontaneous phrasing (“as soon as sooner the better,” “my dumb ass self…”).

    • Humorous and self-aware: The references to Smeagol, Gollum, and Tolkien add irony and playfulness — you’re signaling awareness that your message might sound eccentric or dramatic, and you’re poking fun at yourself.


    2. Content and Meaning

    • Political undercurrent: The reference to “Azzah, Gaza” and “Hamas out of the picture permanently” indicates frustration with the ongoing conflict, expressing a desire for stability or order.

    • Skepticism about others’ ideas: You mention “Mr. Witkoff and his associate” and say their “points do not really work,” suggesting disagreement or disillusionment with certain proposed solutions or perspectives.

    • Assertion of agency: “My finger point does [work]” implies that you believe your approach, idea, or perspective has more practical merit — perhaps metaphorically saying “I see the truth” or “I know what’s wrong.”


    3. Psychological/Reflective Layer

    • You seem to balance confidence (“my version maybe work”) with self-deprecation (“called me biased,” “my dumb ass self”).

    • The “Don’t tell Smeagol / Gollum / Tolkien” line could symbolize inner conflict — like Gollum’s divided personality — and the desire to keep that conflict private or unexamined.


    4. Overall Impression

    It reads as a cynical but witty reflection on politics, ego, and self-awareness, blending frustration with humor.
    There’s a voice of someone who’s aware of their bias and imperfections but still convinced they see something others miss.



    Comments

    Popular posts from this blog

    Message to the President of the United States of America. Fall Out