Deal or No Deal?
Consider the following Game Theory problem:
Mr A and Mr B have a dispute, and decide to negotiate directly to settle it. Mr A is extremely anxious to make a settlement, but Mr B is not. Mr A proposes a compromise under which both sides get about half of what they want; B declares that he will not settle unless virtually all his demands are met. Either B wins the negotiation, or there is no settlement at all.
Now Mr C, who can influence, but cannot control, either party, enters the picture. C has no particular stake in the terms of a settlement of the dispute, except that he considers it urgent for his own interests that some settlement be made, on whatever terms. C offers to be an "honest broker" between A and B, relaying their proposals to each other, and sometimes offering suggestions of his own. But all the while, C is urging the parties to settle their dispute already.
Even if C is scrupulously "even-handed" between A and B, it is easy to see that C's efforts actually serve the interests of B, because no settlement can be made except upon B's terms. Thus C's urgency in finding a settlement, no matter how well-intentioned, works in favor of the more demanding party.
Readers will recognize that this abstract problem is a paradigm of the efforts to negotiate a settlement of the dispute between A (Israel) and B (the Palestinians) by C (the United States). But today there is a new player : J, which stands for "J Street", the mostly-Jewish lobby that pushes for stronger US efforts to create a "two-state solution" to the Israel-Arab dispute. A recent publication by the group entitled "Turning No into Yes on a Two-State Solution" dated July 9, 2010, illustrates how the efforts of J Street objectively serve the Arab cause, despite the group's claim to be "pro-Israel."
The document includes 9 talking points, but let us zero-in on point 7: Jerusalem. J Street writes, "Jerusalem will ultimately be shared in some manner and it will be a good thing for Israel......the two-state solution is only possible if both Israeli and Palestinian claims to Jerusalem are reconciled.....This must mean finding a way for Israeli Jerusalem ...to be recognized as Israel's capital, and Palestinian Jerusalem....to be recognized as the capital of Palestine. This is the only way forward....."
On this point J Street has bought the Palestine Authority (PA) position hook, line and sinker, so "J" is actually sitting on B's side of the negotiating table while prodding C to push for a settlement. But why is a " two-state solution only possible" if Israel cedes part of Jerusalem to Arab rule? Because the Palestinians (B) won't settle otherwise! Actually a Palestinian state is possible without Jerusalem; the capital could be Nablus or Ramallah or Jenin. But the Palestinians are not so anxious for a deal that they would accept a state without at least part of Jerusalem, so the alternative capitals are out of the question.
By the same token, the Palestinians will not accept a state with Jewish settlements, so no solution is possible unless the settlements are "dismantled" and residents evicted. Those who buy this perspective consider every settlement, including every Jewish-occupied apartment in East Jerusalem, an "obstacle to peace." They are obstacles only because the Arabs say they are obstacles, and that is that. But no one says that Arab homes in Israel are obstacles to peace. (1)
If peace between Israel and the Arabs is possible only if Israel gives away East Jerusalem, the settlements, and whatever more, then there should be no peace in the Middle East today, since Israel has these assets. But ----mirable dictu (2)--- Israel does have peace today (July 11, 2010 at 3:21 CDT, k'eineh horah) without making the concessions demanded. No thanks to self-restraint on the part of the enemies of Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc.), but thanks to the the Security Fence, which has actually worked well to keep terrorists out of the country. (Remember the claims that no fence could protect Israel from terrorism, but a peace treaty could?)
Israel continues to face threats to its security today and tomorrow---from Iran and its surrogates on the country's borders, but neither Iran nor the surrogates support a negotiated two-state solution. Thus the Palestine Authority lacks both the power to make war and the power to deliver a real peace. So why the urgency in negotiating a peace agreement with the PA, especially when their terms are so unreasonable?
In any negotiation, the party that feels free to walk away wins and the party that must have a deal at any price loses. If agreement is only possible on Arab terms, Israel should feel free to walk away. No deal is better than a bad deal, especially to the party that doesn't really need one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Rabbi Meir Kahane claimed that the Arab population of Israel was a demographic threat to the Jewish nature of the State, but he was excluded from the Knesset for that position, and was subsequently assassinated in New York. No Israeli party today takes that stance.
(2) Latin for "miraculous to speak of", a favorite phrase of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
Mr A and Mr B have a dispute, and decide to negotiate directly to settle it. Mr A is extremely anxious to make a settlement, but Mr B is not. Mr A proposes a compromise under which both sides get about half of what they want; B declares that he will not settle unless virtually all his demands are met. Either B wins the negotiation, or there is no settlement at all.
Now Mr C, who can influence, but cannot control, either party, enters the picture. C has no particular stake in the terms of a settlement of the dispute, except that he considers it urgent for his own interests that some settlement be made, on whatever terms. C offers to be an "honest broker" between A and B, relaying their proposals to each other, and sometimes offering suggestions of his own. But all the while, C is urging the parties to settle their dispute already.
Even if C is scrupulously "even-handed" between A and B, it is easy to see that C's efforts actually serve the interests of B, because no settlement can be made except upon B's terms. Thus C's urgency in finding a settlement, no matter how well-intentioned, works in favor of the more demanding party.
Readers will recognize that this abstract problem is a paradigm of the efforts to negotiate a settlement of the dispute between A (Israel) and B (the Palestinians) by C (the United States). But today there is a new player : J, which stands for "J Street", the mostly-Jewish lobby that pushes for stronger US efforts to create a "two-state solution" to the Israel-Arab dispute. A recent publication by the group entitled "Turning No into Yes on a Two-State Solution" dated July 9, 2010, illustrates how the efforts of J Street objectively serve the Arab cause, despite the group's claim to be "pro-Israel."
The document includes 9 talking points, but let us zero-in on point 7: Jerusalem. J Street writes, "Jerusalem will ultimately be shared in some manner and it will be a good thing for Israel......the two-state solution is only possible if both Israeli and Palestinian claims to Jerusalem are reconciled.....This must mean finding a way for Israeli Jerusalem ...to be recognized as Israel's capital, and Palestinian Jerusalem....to be recognized as the capital of Palestine. This is the only way forward....."
On this point J Street has bought the Palestine Authority (PA) position hook, line and sinker, so "J" is actually sitting on B's side of the negotiating table while prodding C to push for a settlement. But why is a " two-state solution only possible" if Israel cedes part of Jerusalem to Arab rule? Because the Palestinians (B) won't settle otherwise! Actually a Palestinian state is possible without Jerusalem; the capital could be Nablus or Ramallah or Jenin. But the Palestinians are not so anxious for a deal that they would accept a state without at least part of Jerusalem, so the alternative capitals are out of the question.
By the same token, the Palestinians will not accept a state with Jewish settlements, so no solution is possible unless the settlements are "dismantled" and residents evicted. Those who buy this perspective consider every settlement, including every Jewish-occupied apartment in East Jerusalem, an "obstacle to peace." They are obstacles only because the Arabs say they are obstacles, and that is that. But no one says that Arab homes in Israel are obstacles to peace. (1)
If peace between Israel and the Arabs is possible only if Israel gives away East Jerusalem, the settlements, and whatever more, then there should be no peace in the Middle East today, since Israel has these assets. But ----mirable dictu (2)--- Israel does have peace today (July 11, 2010 at 3:21 CDT, k'eineh horah) without making the concessions demanded. No thanks to self-restraint on the part of the enemies of Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc.), but thanks to the the Security Fence, which has actually worked well to keep terrorists out of the country. (Remember the claims that no fence could protect Israel from terrorism, but a peace treaty could?)
Israel continues to face threats to its security today and tomorrow---from Iran and its surrogates on the country's borders, but neither Iran nor the surrogates support a negotiated two-state solution. Thus the Palestine Authority lacks both the power to make war and the power to deliver a real peace. So why the urgency in negotiating a peace agreement with the PA, especially when their terms are so unreasonable?
In any negotiation, the party that feels free to walk away wins and the party that must have a deal at any price loses. If agreement is only possible on Arab terms, Israel should feel free to walk away. No deal is better than a bad deal, especially to the party that doesn't really need one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Rabbi Meir Kahane claimed that the Arab population of Israel was a demographic threat to the Jewish nature of the State, but he was excluded from the Knesset for that position, and was subsequently assassinated in New York. No Israeli party today takes that stance.
(2) Latin for "miraculous to speak of", a favorite phrase of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
Labels: Israel, Jerusalem, negotiations
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 2:40 PM
1 Comments:
Here is a very simple soloution for Israel that has worked for decades and will work for deacdes more.
DO NOTHING
Let the Arabs sue for peace and when they propose something Israel likes, then make peace, but until then:
DOP NOTHING
Post a Comment
<< Home