Arab-Israel Negotiations are a Game played by the Arabs
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Blackmailer's Paradox: Arab-Israel Negotiations are a Game
by Prof. Yisrael Aumann
Two men — let us call them Reuben and Simon — are put in a small room containing a suitcase filled with bills totaling $100,000. The owner of the suitcase announces the following:
"I will give you the money in the suitcase under one condition...you have to negotiate an agreement on how to divide it. That is the only way I will agree to give you the money."
Reuben is a rational person and realizes the golden opportunity that has fallen his way. He turns to Simon with the obvious suggestion: "You take half and I'll take half, that way each of us will have $50,000."
To his surprise, Simon frowns at him and says, in a tone that leaves no room for doubt: "Look here, I don't know what your plans are for the money, but I don't intend to leave this room with less than $90,000. If you accept that, fine. If not, we can both go home without any of the money."
Reuben can hardly believe his ears. What has happened to Simon he asks himself. Why should he get 90% of the money and I just 10%? He decides to try to convince Simon to accept his view. "Let's be logical," he urges him, "We are in the same situation, we both want the money. Let's divide the money equally and both of us will profit."
Simon, however, doesn't seem perturbed by his friend's logic He listens attentively, but when Reuben is finished he says, even more emphatically than before: "90-10 or nothing. That is my last offer."
Reuben's face turns red with anger. He is about to punch Simon in the nose, but he steps back. He realizes that Simon is not going to relent, and that the only way he can leave the room with any money is to give in to him. He straightens his clothes, takes $10,000 from the suitcase, shakes Simon's hand and leaves the room humiliated.
This case is called 'The Blackmailer's Paradox" in game theory. The paradox is that Reuben the rational is forced to behave irrationally by definition, in order to achieve maximum results in the face of the situation that has evolved. What brings about this bizarre outcome is the fact Simon is sure of himself and doesn't flinch when making his exorbitant demand. This convinces Reuben that he must give in so as to make the best of the situation.
The Arab-Israeli Conflict:
The relationship between Israel and the Arab countries is conducted along the lines of this paradox. At each stage of negotiation, the Arabs present impossible, unacceptable starting positions. They act sure of themselves and as if they totally believe in what they are asking for, and make it clear to Israel that there is no chance of their backing down.
Invariably, Israel agrees to their blackmailing demands because otherwise she will leave the room empty handed. The most blatant example of this is the negotiations with Syria that have been taking place with different levels of negotiators for years. The Syrians made sure that it was clear from the beginning that they would not compromise on one millimeter of the Golan Heights.
The Israeli side, eager to have a peace agreement with Syria, internalized the Syrian position so well, that the Israeli public is sure that the starting point for future negotiations with Syria has to include complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights, this despite its critical strategic importance in ensuring secure borders for Israel.
The Losing Solution:
According to game theory, Israel has to change certain basic perceptions in order to improve her chances in the negotiations game with the Arabs and win the long term political struggle:
a. Willingness to forego agreements:
Israel's political stand is based on the principle that agreements must be reached with the Arabs at any price, that the lack of agreements is untenable. In the Blackmailer's Paradox, Reuben's behavior is the result of his feeling that he must leave the room with some money, no matter how little. Because Reuben cannot imagine himself leaving the room with empty hands, he is easy prey for Simon, and ends up leaving with a certain amount of money, but in the role of the humiliated loser. This is similar to the way Israel handles negotiations, her mental state making her unable to reject suggestions that do not advance her interests.
b. Taking repetition into account
Game theory relates to onetime situations differently than to situations that repeat themselves. A situation that repeats itself over any length of time, creates, paradoxically, strategic parity that leads to cooperation between the opposing sides. This cooperation occurs when both sides realize that the game is going to repeat itself, and that since they must weigh the influence present moves will have on future games, there is a balancing factor at play. Reuben saw his problem as a onetime event, and behaved accordingly. Had he told Simon instead that he would not forego the amount he deserves even if he sustains a total loss, he would have changed the game results for an indefinite period. It is probably true that he would still have left the game empty handed, but at the next meeting with Simon, the latter would remember Reuben's original suggestion and would try to reach a compromise.
That is how Israel has to behave, looking at the long term in order to improve her position in future negotiations, even if it means continuing a state of war and fore going an agreement.
c. Faith in your opinions
Another element that creates the "Blackmailer's Paradox" is the unwavering belief of one side in its opinion. Simon exemplifies that. This faith gives a contender inner confidence in his cause at the start and eventually convinces his rival as well. The result is that the opposing side wants to reach an agreement, even at the expense of irrational surrender that is considerably distanced from his opening position. Several years ago, I spoke to a senior officer who claimed that Israel must withdraw from the Golan Heights in the framework of a peace treaty, because the Golan is holy land to the Syrians and they will never give it up. I explained to him that first the Syrians convinced themselves that the Golan is holy land to them, and then proceeded to convince you as well. The Syrians' unflinching belief that they are in the right convinces us to give in to their dictates. The only solution to that is for us to believe unwaveringly in the righteousness of our cause. Only complete faith in our demands can succeed in convincing our Syrian opponent to take our opinion into account.
As in all of science, game theory does not take sides in moral and value judgments. It analyzes strategically the behavior of opposing sides in a game they play against one another. The State of Israel is in the midst of one such game opposite its enemies. As in every game, the Arab-Israeli game involves interests that create the framework of the game and its rules.
Sadly, Israel ignores the basic principles of game theory. If Israel would be wise enough to behave according to those principles, her political status and de facto, her security status, would improve substantially. ?
Eiditor's Note: Some of the readers' comments point out other considerations.
1. Dr.Auman's Analysis ?I respectfully disagree with at least part of Dr. Auman's analysis because of a simple reason. In his model, both Reuben and Simon want to walk away with money; Simon is merely trying to maximize his return by playing on the insecurities of Reuben (through the blackmail). So the theory is if Simon presses his position strong enough, he'll walk away with more. But our Arab cousins are not interested in any solution that doesn't totally destroy Reuben even if it leaves him with nothing! (c.f. suicide bombing) ?em, brooklyn (07/06/10)
2. Prof. Aumann left out one big important factor! ?As Arafat himself pointed out after the Clinton administration attempt at "Lets Help Israel and the Pals Negotiate:" The most strategic game the Pals are playing is the game they play with with their own people. Arafat told Clinton: " If I go back with what you offered, my own people will lynch me and find a new leader! " ?hiddenheard, (07/06/10)
3. A different game is played ?1. The $100,000 money that is offered for negotiations was originally robbed from Reuben and rightfully belongs to him. ?2. Simon is paid billions on the side to encourage him to negotiate. If he ends the game he will lose those billions. So it's in his interest to continue the game indefinitely. ?3. It is not the case that the $100k is in the suitcase. It is actually in Reuben's bank account. The game consists of convincing Reuben to make a "unilateral (cash) withdrawal " and hand the money to over to Simon, who will use the money to finance his robbery operations against Reuben. ?Eliezer, Brooklyn (07/06/10)
4. Blackmail ?The present situation only continues because of the prevalence of Jew-hatred in the world. Egypt and Jordan have accepted massive aide packages for peace. So they fight a war by proxy using the "palestinians ". It works beautifully, by remaining "stateless " these people do not have to abide by any laws, and there are enough splinter factions that if one is appeased another can make new demands. We go along with the charade hoping that someday things will improve. When will anyone ever point out that the emperor is naked? Israel WON a defensive war against Egypt and Jordan. "displaced " citizens of those countries should be under their control. Arabs that choose to leave Israel fall into that category, as well as any who can not pledge an oath of loyalty. It should be up to Egypt and Jordan to control them, and or give them a state. Pure and simple. ?bb, Karmiel (07/06/10)
5. Tactical Changes ?Logic and reason are not of any value in this type of negotiation. Morality and common sense mean nothing either. The best example of a well-prepared player in this game is a professional gambler. Frankly, the stakes are too high to allow anyone else. Probably a poker genius with years of experience in high-risk games would react best under intolerable pressure, and could pull off more than one victory with ease. Faith is also a critical factor, so a person whose beliefs are rock-solid is essential. Perhaps Mr. Netanyahu could employ an adviser with those traits, e.g., an orthodox Rabbi who makes a living at the casinos in Nevada.... shrewd, supremely confident, lucky and with a friend in the highest of all places. ?Dorian, Sparks (07/06/10)
Yisrael Aumann is a professor at the Center for the Study of Rationality in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel. He also holds a visiting position at Stony Brook University and is one of the founding members of the Center for Game Theory in Economics at Stony Brook. Aumann received a Nobel award in Economics in 2005 for his work on conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis.
Israel national news
by Prof. Yisrael Aumann
Two men — let us call them Reuben and Simon — are put in a small room containing a suitcase filled with bills totaling $100,000. The owner of the suitcase announces the following:
"I will give you the money in the suitcase under one condition...you have to negotiate an agreement on how to divide it. That is the only way I will agree to give you the money."
Reuben is a rational person and realizes the golden opportunity that has fallen his way. He turns to Simon with the obvious suggestion: "You take half and I'll take half, that way each of us will have $50,000."
To his surprise, Simon frowns at him and says, in a tone that leaves no room for doubt: "Look here, I don't know what your plans are for the money, but I don't intend to leave this room with less than $90,000. If you accept that, fine. If not, we can both go home without any of the money."
Reuben can hardly believe his ears. What has happened to Simon he asks himself. Why should he get 90% of the money and I just 10%? He decides to try to convince Simon to accept his view. "Let's be logical," he urges him, "We are in the same situation, we both want the money. Let's divide the money equally and both of us will profit."
Simon, however, doesn't seem perturbed by his friend's logic He listens attentively, but when Reuben is finished he says, even more emphatically than before: "90-10 or nothing. That is my last offer."
Reuben's face turns red with anger. He is about to punch Simon in the nose, but he steps back. He realizes that Simon is not going to relent, and that the only way he can leave the room with any money is to give in to him. He straightens his clothes, takes $10,000 from the suitcase, shakes Simon's hand and leaves the room humiliated.
This case is called 'The Blackmailer's Paradox" in game theory. The paradox is that Reuben the rational is forced to behave irrationally by definition, in order to achieve maximum results in the face of the situation that has evolved. What brings about this bizarre outcome is the fact Simon is sure of himself and doesn't flinch when making his exorbitant demand. This convinces Reuben that he must give in so as to make the best of the situation.
The Arab-Israeli Conflict:
The relationship between Israel and the Arab countries is conducted along the lines of this paradox. At each stage of negotiation, the Arabs present impossible, unacceptable starting positions. They act sure of themselves and as if they totally believe in what they are asking for, and make it clear to Israel that there is no chance of their backing down.
Invariably, Israel agrees to their blackmailing demands because otherwise she will leave the room empty handed. The most blatant example of this is the negotiations with Syria that have been taking place with different levels of negotiators for years. The Syrians made sure that it was clear from the beginning that they would not compromise on one millimeter of the Golan Heights.
The Israeli side, eager to have a peace agreement with Syria, internalized the Syrian position so well, that the Israeli public is sure that the starting point for future negotiations with Syria has to include complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights, this despite its critical strategic importance in ensuring secure borders for Israel.
The Losing Solution:
According to game theory, Israel has to change certain basic perceptions in order to improve her chances in the negotiations game with the Arabs and win the long term political struggle:
a. Willingness to forego agreements:
Israel's political stand is based on the principle that agreements must be reached with the Arabs at any price, that the lack of agreements is untenable. In the Blackmailer's Paradox, Reuben's behavior is the result of his feeling that he must leave the room with some money, no matter how little. Because Reuben cannot imagine himself leaving the room with empty hands, he is easy prey for Simon, and ends up leaving with a certain amount of money, but in the role of the humiliated loser. This is similar to the way Israel handles negotiations, her mental state making her unable to reject suggestions that do not advance her interests.
b. Taking repetition into account
Game theory relates to onetime situations differently than to situations that repeat themselves. A situation that repeats itself over any length of time, creates, paradoxically, strategic parity that leads to cooperation between the opposing sides. This cooperation occurs when both sides realize that the game is going to repeat itself, and that since they must weigh the influence present moves will have on future games, there is a balancing factor at play. Reuben saw his problem as a onetime event, and behaved accordingly. Had he told Simon instead that he would not forego the amount he deserves even if he sustains a total loss, he would have changed the game results for an indefinite period. It is probably true that he would still have left the game empty handed, but at the next meeting with Simon, the latter would remember Reuben's original suggestion and would try to reach a compromise.
That is how Israel has to behave, looking at the long term in order to improve her position in future negotiations, even if it means continuing a state of war and fore going an agreement.
c. Faith in your opinions
Another element that creates the "Blackmailer's Paradox" is the unwavering belief of one side in its opinion. Simon exemplifies that. This faith gives a contender inner confidence in his cause at the start and eventually convinces his rival as well. The result is that the opposing side wants to reach an agreement, even at the expense of irrational surrender that is considerably distanced from his opening position. Several years ago, I spoke to a senior officer who claimed that Israel must withdraw from the Golan Heights in the framework of a peace treaty, because the Golan is holy land to the Syrians and they will never give it up. I explained to him that first the Syrians convinced themselves that the Golan is holy land to them, and then proceeded to convince you as well. The Syrians' unflinching belief that they are in the right convinces us to give in to their dictates. The only solution to that is for us to believe unwaveringly in the righteousness of our cause. Only complete faith in our demands can succeed in convincing our Syrian opponent to take our opinion into account.
As in all of science, game theory does not take sides in moral and value judgments. It analyzes strategically the behavior of opposing sides in a game they play against one another. The State of Israel is in the midst of one such game opposite its enemies. As in every game, the Arab-Israeli game involves interests that create the framework of the game and its rules.
Sadly, Israel ignores the basic principles of game theory. If Israel would be wise enough to behave according to those principles, her political status and de facto, her security status, would improve substantially. ?
Eiditor's Note: Some of the readers' comments point out other considerations.
1. Dr.Auman's Analysis ?I respectfully disagree with at least part of Dr. Auman's analysis because of a simple reason. In his model, both Reuben and Simon want to walk away with money; Simon is merely trying to maximize his return by playing on the insecurities of Reuben (through the blackmail). So the theory is if Simon presses his position strong enough, he'll walk away with more. But our Arab cousins are not interested in any solution that doesn't totally destroy Reuben even if it leaves him with nothing! (c.f. suicide bombing) ?em, brooklyn (07/06/10)
2. Prof. Aumann left out one big important factor! ?As Arafat himself pointed out after the Clinton administration attempt at "Lets Help Israel and the Pals Negotiate:" The most strategic game the Pals are playing is the game they play with with their own people. Arafat told Clinton: " If I go back with what you offered, my own people will lynch me and find a new leader! " ?hiddenheard, (07/06/10)
3. A different game is played ?1. The $100,000 money that is offered for negotiations was originally robbed from Reuben and rightfully belongs to him. ?2. Simon is paid billions on the side to encourage him to negotiate. If he ends the game he will lose those billions. So it's in his interest to continue the game indefinitely. ?3. It is not the case that the $100k is in the suitcase. It is actually in Reuben's bank account. The game consists of convincing Reuben to make a "unilateral (cash) withdrawal " and hand the money to over to Simon, who will use the money to finance his robbery operations against Reuben. ?Eliezer, Brooklyn (07/06/10)
4. Blackmail ?The present situation only continues because of the prevalence of Jew-hatred in the world. Egypt and Jordan have accepted massive aide packages for peace. So they fight a war by proxy using the "palestinians ". It works beautifully, by remaining "stateless " these people do not have to abide by any laws, and there are enough splinter factions that if one is appeased another can make new demands. We go along with the charade hoping that someday things will improve. When will anyone ever point out that the emperor is naked? Israel WON a defensive war against Egypt and Jordan. "displaced " citizens of those countries should be under their control. Arabs that choose to leave Israel fall into that category, as well as any who can not pledge an oath of loyalty. It should be up to Egypt and Jordan to control them, and or give them a state. Pure and simple. ?bb, Karmiel (07/06/10)
5. Tactical Changes ?Logic and reason are not of any value in this type of negotiation. Morality and common sense mean nothing either. The best example of a well-prepared player in this game is a professional gambler. Frankly, the stakes are too high to allow anyone else. Probably a poker genius with years of experience in high-risk games would react best under intolerable pressure, and could pull off more than one victory with ease. Faith is also a critical factor, so a person whose beliefs are rock-solid is essential. Perhaps Mr. Netanyahu could employ an adviser with those traits, e.g., an orthodox Rabbi who makes a living at the casinos in Nevada.... shrewd, supremely confident, lucky and with a friend in the highest of all places. ?Dorian, Sparks (07/06/10)
Yisrael Aumann is a professor at the Center for the Study of Rationality in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel. He also holds a visiting position at Stony Brook University and is one of the founding members of the Center for Game Theory in Economics at Stony Brook. Aumann received a Nobel award in Economics in 2005 for his work on conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis.
Israel national news
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Israel Alone in the Muslim World
Israel will always remain isolated in a region defined by religion and race.
by Daniel Greenfield
Leon Panetta visited Israel to warn about its “growing isolation” and he is half right. Right about the isolation and wrong about the growing part.
Israel is isolated in the Middle-East, but its isolation is a constant reality, not a growing phenomenon. It is not isolated because of its policies, as its critics claim, but because its identity is at odds with a region dominated by Arab-Muslims whose national identities is closely tied to ethnicity and religion.
Israel is isolated in the same way that the United States and Canada are isolated among a hemisphere of Latino states or they would be if they paid attention to what was going on south of the border. But the North American anglos have enough land and population to ignore the commonplace hostility of their southern neighbors. Enough breathing room that most in the north are unaware that there is a rivalry in the south.
With its tiny territory, a sizable minority population that is from the regional majority (something that is also becoming an issue in the United States) and nothing in the way of a buffer zone, the isolation is much more extreme for the only non-Muslim and non-Arab state in the Middle-East. But there is one additional factor. Israel’s difference is not merely ethnic or racial, it’s also religious. And the religion it’s surrounded by is a creed which views mass murder as an acceptable solution to religious differences.
If Sunnis and Shiites can’t get along with one another, how exactly is Israel expected to overcome a much more fundamental isolation?
Israel will always remain isolated in a region defined by religion and race
Israel will always remain isolated in a region defined by religion and race. There is no way around that and no amount of peace processes and policies will change that. There is a measurable distance between Iran and the rest of the region because it is Persian and Shiite. In the same way there is a distance between Turkey and the rest of the region because it is non-Arab. No matter how much Iran and Turkey get out front to lead the Jihad, they will always be on the outs.
There have only been two defining movements in the region: Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism. The protests and revolutions of the Arab Spring have only been a means of advancing the goals of Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism. Israel’s Jews, like the Kurds, the Persians and the Turks, have no place in a Pan-Arabist region. Unlike all of them, Israel’s Jews are completely on the outs in a Pan-Islamist scheme.
If Israel’s isolation has grown, it is because the region has shifted further into the Pan-Islamist column after Turkey’s Islamist rulers succeeded in bringing down the central pillar of the secular state. There is nothing Israel could do to reverse this isolation except convert en masse to Islam. And even if it that it would be the wrong kind of Islam as far as the Shiites of Iran or the Alawite rulers of Syria are concerned.
While the old British foreign policy hands, bastards though they were, innately understood all this, the Muslim world has successfully framed the conflict in terms of the Palestinian Arabs, whom they keep around as cheap labor and cheap killers. The drumbeat of pressure on Israel to somehow create a Palestinian state as a means of ending its isolation is a wrongheaded conclusion drawn from the cynical propaganda of failed regimes.
Israel cannot end its isolation, because its isolation is the product of regional identity, not policy. Much of the Middle East has backchannels to Israel and carries on covert forms of trade with Israel. At the same time their newspapers and television states attack Israel whenever a ruler needs a convenient scapegoat. Any normalization that happens will be equally impermanent and will be reversed the moment that the situation at home changes. This is what happened in Egypt.
Israel is hated because it is different and it survives because it is powerful
Israel is hated because it is different and it survives because it is powerful. It is powerful because its military is used for external defense, rather than internal repression. This sets it apart from the Muslim world where militaries are used primarily for internal repression.
A Middle Eastern army that becomes strong enough is called a government. Middle Eastern countries that are large enough to field a large army rarely need it as a defense against an invasion and small countries are rarely capable of fielding a competent army because they lack the professionalism and don’t see the point. Instead they rely on agreements with larger neighbors that keep them from being gobbled up.
Israel is the exception as a tiny country fielding a large army. It is able to do this because of its level of competence and because its internal stability means that the military does not need to be used for domestic repression, is not at risk of carrying out a coup and does not need to be composed of a ruling minority.
Israeli exceptionalism
These are very important points and they form the backbone of Israeli exceptionalism. But they are also being eroded.
The drive to negotiate with the terrorists and appease by ethnically cleansing its own population has made Israel very unstable. The left is obsessed with using the military for the domestic repression of the right, while at the same time terrified that the majority of the military will soon be composed of a group that is culturally and theologically opposed to their agenda.
The Israeli military has always been mixed in with the government, and generals easily transition into politicians, but unlike the rest of the region it has never happened at gunpoint. However the left is intent on forcing the military to choose sides in the civil war that they are doing their best to create. The growing polarization is having a negative impact on the viability of the IDF as a fighting force and the Second Lebanon War tragically demonstrated that.
But the primary source of the instability is the pipeline of Muslim pressure on America and Europe, becoming American and European pressure on Israel, which turns into domestic instability at home. Using the West as a tool, the Muslim world has managed to destabilize Israel and that threatens its survival as a democracy, and its survival as a democracy threatens the viability of its defenses.
Israel is told to abandon much of its territory and its identity, and wreck its military by turning it against its own citizens in the hopes of normalizing relations with the region. If not, then it will face regional and global isolation. Either you kill yourself or I’ll kill you.
It’s a neat trap and a devil’s bargain because most people will choose to take control of a situation even if it’s to their own detriment. Given a choice between chopping off their own hand or being shot in the head, they’ll choose the former. Worse yet they’ll do it to show how cooperative they’re willing to be. And once they’ve agreed to chop off their hand, then they can’t very well argue over a foot or two.
Give your enemy a choice between safe passivity and foolish action on a single open path and you can crush his forces every time. Make the foolish action seem noble and inevitable and you can go home early.
The Muslim world can’t maintain stability in its own countries
The Muslim world can’t maintain stability in its own countries, because its Pan-this and Pan-that which always leave someone one, but it is excellent at destabilizing other countries, at spreading rumor and innuendo, at playing the aggrieved victims, at street theater accompanied by bouts of violence.
As the saner parts of the world are losing their minds and agreeing to commit suicide, they expect Israel to follow suit. To jump into the sea in the name of some greater global harmony. Panetta is only the latest messenger boy toting a big briefcase filled with the same bad news. “You’ve got to work harder, really put your back into appeasing those terrorists. Throw in Jerusalem, Ariel, and whatever else you’ve got.”
But no matter what Israel does it will remain isolated and that’s a good thing.
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. The only country without leaders for life or freedoms for no one. The only country where you don’t lose any rights by being born with XX chromosomes and going to be a different house of worship does not make you an enemy of the state. It’s a country bursting with ideas and debates, with technology and creativity and that offers a level of human rights completely foreign to the rest of the region.
Being alone in the Muslim world is not a bad thing morally, though it may be a bad position to be in defensively. That sense of isolation is wearying and dehumanizing, an endless horizon that seems as if it could be bridged with only a little effort. But that is an illusion.
On a map Israel seems isolated, but in truth it is the Muslim world which is isolated. It is the Muslim world that has carved itself up into tiny enclaves, each sect, each people, each street divided against itself. The chaos in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Libya are a reminder of the internal fragmentation and isolation of the Muslim world. An isolation so pervasive that it cannot be overcome except through temporary alliances against a common foe. An ultimate “Other”.
Israel has not been isolated by its choices, but by the cultural failures of its neighbors. As long as its neighbors deal with their own instability through war and tyranny in the name of collective identities that they cannot sustain, that will not change.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com
Canada Free Press
by Daniel Greenfield
Leon Panetta visited Israel to warn about its “growing isolation” and he is half right. Right about the isolation and wrong about the growing part.
Israel is isolated in the Middle-East, but its isolation is a constant reality, not a growing phenomenon. It is not isolated because of its policies, as its critics claim, but because its identity is at odds with a region dominated by Arab-Muslims whose national identities is closely tied to ethnicity and religion.
Israel is isolated in the same way that the United States and Canada are isolated among a hemisphere of Latino states or they would be if they paid attention to what was going on south of the border. But the North American anglos have enough land and population to ignore the commonplace hostility of their southern neighbors. Enough breathing room that most in the north are unaware that there is a rivalry in the south.
With its tiny territory, a sizable minority population that is from the regional majority (something that is also becoming an issue in the United States) and nothing in the way of a buffer zone, the isolation is much more extreme for the only non-Muslim and non-Arab state in the Middle-East. But there is one additional factor. Israel’s difference is not merely ethnic or racial, it’s also religious. And the religion it’s surrounded by is a creed which views mass murder as an acceptable solution to religious differences.
If Sunnis and Shiites can’t get along with one another, how exactly is Israel expected to overcome a much more fundamental isolation?
Israel will always remain isolated in a region defined by religion and race
Israel will always remain isolated in a region defined by religion and race. There is no way around that and no amount of peace processes and policies will change that. There is a measurable distance between Iran and the rest of the region because it is Persian and Shiite. In the same way there is a distance between Turkey and the rest of the region because it is non-Arab. No matter how much Iran and Turkey get out front to lead the Jihad, they will always be on the outs.
There have only been two defining movements in the region: Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism. The protests and revolutions of the Arab Spring have only been a means of advancing the goals of Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism. Israel’s Jews, like the Kurds, the Persians and the Turks, have no place in a Pan-Arabist region. Unlike all of them, Israel’s Jews are completely on the outs in a Pan-Islamist scheme.
If Israel’s isolation has grown, it is because the region has shifted further into the Pan-Islamist column after Turkey’s Islamist rulers succeeded in bringing down the central pillar of the secular state. There is nothing Israel could do to reverse this isolation except convert en masse to Islam. And even if it that it would be the wrong kind of Islam as far as the Shiites of Iran or the Alawite rulers of Syria are concerned.
While the old British foreign policy hands, bastards though they were, innately understood all this, the Muslim world has successfully framed the conflict in terms of the Palestinian Arabs, whom they keep around as cheap labor and cheap killers. The drumbeat of pressure on Israel to somehow create a Palestinian state as a means of ending its isolation is a wrongheaded conclusion drawn from the cynical propaganda of failed regimes.
Israel cannot end its isolation, because its isolation is the product of regional identity, not policy. Much of the Middle East has backchannels to Israel and carries on covert forms of trade with Israel. At the same time their newspapers and television states attack Israel whenever a ruler needs a convenient scapegoat. Any normalization that happens will be equally impermanent and will be reversed the moment that the situation at home changes. This is what happened in Egypt.
Israel is hated because it is different and it survives because it is powerful
Israel is hated because it is different and it survives because it is powerful. It is powerful because its military is used for external defense, rather than internal repression. This sets it apart from the Muslim world where militaries are used primarily for internal repression.
A Middle Eastern army that becomes strong enough is called a government. Middle Eastern countries that are large enough to field a large army rarely need it as a defense against an invasion and small countries are rarely capable of fielding a competent army because they lack the professionalism and don’t see the point. Instead they rely on agreements with larger neighbors that keep them from being gobbled up.
Israel is the exception as a tiny country fielding a large army. It is able to do this because of its level of competence and because its internal stability means that the military does not need to be used for domestic repression, is not at risk of carrying out a coup and does not need to be composed of a ruling minority.
Israeli exceptionalism
These are very important points and they form the backbone of Israeli exceptionalism. But they are also being eroded.
The drive to negotiate with the terrorists and appease by ethnically cleansing its own population has made Israel very unstable. The left is obsessed with using the military for the domestic repression of the right, while at the same time terrified that the majority of the military will soon be composed of a group that is culturally and theologically opposed to their agenda.
The Israeli military has always been mixed in with the government, and generals easily transition into politicians, but unlike the rest of the region it has never happened at gunpoint. However the left is intent on forcing the military to choose sides in the civil war that they are doing their best to create. The growing polarization is having a negative impact on the viability of the IDF as a fighting force and the Second Lebanon War tragically demonstrated that.
But the primary source of the instability is the pipeline of Muslim pressure on America and Europe, becoming American and European pressure on Israel, which turns into domestic instability at home. Using the West as a tool, the Muslim world has managed to destabilize Israel and that threatens its survival as a democracy, and its survival as a democracy threatens the viability of its defenses.
Israel is told to abandon much of its territory and its identity, and wreck its military by turning it against its own citizens in the hopes of normalizing relations with the region. If not, then it will face regional and global isolation. Either you kill yourself or I’ll kill you.
It’s a neat trap and a devil’s bargain because most people will choose to take control of a situation even if it’s to their own detriment. Given a choice between chopping off their own hand or being shot in the head, they’ll choose the former. Worse yet they’ll do it to show how cooperative they’re willing to be. And once they’ve agreed to chop off their hand, then they can’t very well argue over a foot or two.
Give your enemy a choice between safe passivity and foolish action on a single open path and you can crush his forces every time. Make the foolish action seem noble and inevitable and you can go home early.
The Muslim world can’t maintain stability in its own countries
The Muslim world can’t maintain stability in its own countries, because its Pan-this and Pan-that which always leave someone one, but it is excellent at destabilizing other countries, at spreading rumor and innuendo, at playing the aggrieved victims, at street theater accompanied by bouts of violence.
As the saner parts of the world are losing their minds and agreeing to commit suicide, they expect Israel to follow suit. To jump into the sea in the name of some greater global harmony. Panetta is only the latest messenger boy toting a big briefcase filled with the same bad news. “You’ve got to work harder, really put your back into appeasing those terrorists. Throw in Jerusalem, Ariel, and whatever else you’ve got.”
But no matter what Israel does it will remain isolated and that’s a good thing.
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. The only country without leaders for life or freedoms for no one. The only country where you don’t lose any rights by being born with XX chromosomes and going to be a different house of worship does not make you an enemy of the state. It’s a country bursting with ideas and debates, with technology and creativity and that offers a level of human rights completely foreign to the rest of the region.
Being alone in the Muslim world is not a bad thing morally, though it may be a bad position to be in defensively. That sense of isolation is wearying and dehumanizing, an endless horizon that seems as if it could be bridged with only a little effort. But that is an illusion.
On a map Israel seems isolated, but in truth it is the Muslim world which is isolated. It is the Muslim world that has carved itself up into tiny enclaves, each sect, each people, each street divided against itself. The chaos in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Libya are a reminder of the internal fragmentation and isolation of the Muslim world. An isolation so pervasive that it cannot be overcome except through temporary alliances against a common foe. An ultimate “Other”.
Israel has not been isolated by its choices, but by the cultural failures of its neighbors. As long as its neighbors deal with their own instability through war and tyranny in the name of collective identities that they cannot sustain, that will not change.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com
Canada Free Press
You might also like:
No comments:
Post a Comment