What About Recognition in Israel?

Without Palestinian recognition of Jewish state, what’s the point of negotiations?

by Benny Levy

The commotion around the extended settlement freeze diverts attention away from the additional price Israel is apparently required to pay for the benefit package promised to Netanyahu: Renouncing the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state before entering talks. The prime minister, who presented this demand a few weeks ago, has gone silent as of late; yet without such initial recognition, it’s unclear what will be discussed in the talks.

Starting with discussion on borders and security arrangements, as the Palestinians and Americans demand, is akin to conducting negotiations where the sides are discussing the price, number of installments, their date etc., without first agreeing whether they are selling or leasing the asset. If it’s a sale, the seller will no longer have any rights for the asset. In a lease, the lessee is expected to, and entitled to, demand the asset again in the future.

This is the point of introductory clauses in contracts. There, the sides present their joint interests, which come before the negotiations. For example, as side A is interested in offering an apartment for rent, and side B is interested in renting an apartment, the sides agree to…(and here come the contract clauses to be decided on during negotiations.)

The introduction to the “dream agreement” with the Palestinians should say that as the sides are interested in ending the conflict, and as they view the State of Israel as the Jewish people’s state, and the future state to be established as the Palestinian people’s state, they agree to the following (borders, security, Jerusalem, refugees, etc.) Yet the Palestinians say they will refuse to such introduction. Abbas and Erekat truly disparage such possibility, and Yasser Abed Rabbo, who seemingly presented a different position, has no authority anyway.

More demands in future
Does this mean there is no room for negotiations? Not necessarily. However, in the absence of such recognition, there is no guarantee that in the future the Palestinians won’t demand more rights in Israel. The conflict may be reignited, and this should be taken into account when crafting the details of the agreement.

Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, had it been offered openly to the world – to Israel, the Arab world, nations of the world, and international institutions – would have allowed Israel to show flexibility on the question of borders and assume risks on the security front. Alternately, should the Palestinians not recognize Israel as the Jewish state, this will necessitate wholly different agreements. Making the Palestinians’ intention clean is therefore a required element, rather than a precondition, for holding the negotiations.

Two main questions are being raised. First, why does Israel need its identity to be defined by an external element? The answer to this effort to play dumb is that this isn’t about Israel’s identity decided by the Palestinians, but rather, a clarification that when embarking on talks they agree that “two states for two peoples” means Israel to the Jews and Palestine to the Palestinians. This is a highly important element in drafting the clauses of the agreement. It also affects the refugee issues and presents the hope that should an agreement be reached, it would put an end to the conflict.

And the second question – why wasn’t such recognition demanded in the past from Egypt and Jordan – is also an effort to play dumb. The Jordanians and Egyptians did not demand Israel’s territories and did not educate their sons on the ethos of “the key to our old house in Jaffa.” The absence of an explicit recognition by Jordan and Egypt of Israel as the Jewish State did not constitute an implied rejection, as exists in the Palestinian positions. Moreover, Egypt and Jordan did not engage in negotiations that were all about vagueness, doublespeak, and untruth.

Embarking on negotiations before first agreeing what the sides’ intentions are will amount to a repeat of the Oslo agreement, whose result was – in the words of Yitzhak Rabin, may he rest in peace – “more holes than cheese.”

Benny Levy is the founder of the Shiva non-profit organization dedicated to imparting the Zionist idea





Ynet News

Arab-Israel Negotiation are a Game

The Blackmailer's Paradox: Arab-Israel Negotiation 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. This article appeared in Arutz-Sheva.com ?




Israel National News

Direct Talk About Direct Talks

by Paul Lademain

Barry Rubin makes some good points:

The big story of the moment is the announcement that there will soon be direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). We will see if this new round of negotiations actually happens or not.

The other thing we need to see are the terms for the talks. Are they designed as a give away to whatever the PA demands? Are they well-organized in some coherent structure? Is this a set-up to allow the Obama Administration to claim credit for getting direct talks going (after messing up and contributing to their not getting started for about 16 months?)

Israel's one-year freeze on building inside settlements is coming to an end. For making this concession, Israel received nothing. Now it will be "rewarded" with the opportunity to renew the freeze. How is there going to be a "democratic, and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors" when about half of that supposed state — the Gaza Strip — is based on a radical Islamist regime that seeks genocide against Israel?

I suggest that someone in the media and politics actually begins to talk about what Israel wants out of a negotiated agreement. We hear constantly about Palestinian demands — a state, 1967 borders, east Jerusalem, return of refugees — as if these were the only things on the table. Yet if Israel's demands — recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, security guarantees, resettlement of refugees in Palestine, non-militarization of a Palestinian State, end of the conflict — are ignored that will sabotage the talks.

Even assuming there was a negotiated settlement, Hamas, Hizballah, Syria, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhoods, among others, would try harder to wreck it. The level of terrorism and conflict would rise even more. Iran, for example, would not stop developing nuclear weapons. The ideas that everything is linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict or that resolving the conflict would bring stability and moderation to the region are simply not based on a serious consideration of the area and its politics.

Good points. But how 'bout a fresh approach?

Israel tasks Hillary for a change. First, she will be obliged to produce a list of what she wants Israel to concede, sacrifice, donate, to the arab invaders.
Second, Israel will go deaf, instead of groveling and haggling. Groveling, begging, and haggling invites people to view Jews as guileful chiselers - e.g., nobody respected or admired Barak when he offered Arafat most of Israel's lands in exchange for "recognition" and "peace." You want to know the truth? People here in the US were nauseated by Ehud Barak's craven behavior; Albright was in over her head; Bill Clinton's eye was on the Saudi's mega-million dollar promise to fund his presidential library and of course Hillary benefited from that by proxy.

Israel will stand up straight and respond to Hillary's hubris with its own demands: Israel will demand the complete restoration of all lands recognized as part of the Jewish Homeland by the San Remo Resolution and this land encompasses Judea and Samaria, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and all the land that has since then been handed to the arabs. Jerusalem will be controlled in its entirety by Israel. Israel will keep in reserve its demand for restoration of the Transjordan region to Israel. (For Gossake, Israel has always had Transjordan as a bargaining chip, but it lacked decent, strong-minded statesmen to use it!) *** It appears that Israel's PM loves to bargain, which makes him a soft target for extortion and pressure, which he cannot handle because he loves flattery and "love" more than he values respect.

Israel will expel all illegals and remove the arab seditionists from its parliament (Knesset). The tunnels into Israel will be sealed. Gaza will be restored to Israel and all of Israel's politicians who agreed to give Gaza to the arabs will be prosecuted or fined. Islamics who want to create a new state and who want to be known as "palestinians" will be transfered to Jordan and they will form a separate state within the boundaries of "Jordan".

Restoration of the Temple Mount. Removal of all Waqf from the Temple Mount. Should Jordan balk at Israel's reasonable demands Islamics will be barred from the mosque that remains wrongfully ensconced atop Israel's holiest monument. Anyone who bars Jews from standing atop their Temple Mount will be arrested or fined. Israel will build a new Temple atop the Temple Mount as a symbol of their conquest over the arab invaders. (Do Jews have the stomach for standing up straight and celebrating their own faith? Or are they innately weak, cantankerous and rude? Demanding control over the Temple Mount will be a litmus test.)
Syria will abandon all claims to the Golan Heights or else Israel will demand the right of return for all Jews driven from Syria.

Israel will abandon all of its past feckless attempts to ask, beg, grovel, humiliate itself for peace. (Let old Peres furrow his oily brow and weep tears for his dear sweet jihadis all by himself.) Remember: Israel as an ally is more beneficial to the US than the US is capable of being useful to Israel. Israel will do unto its antagonists as its antagonists have been doing to Israelis. (God will love this.) Jews will abandon their conceits and regain self respect and honest pride without superstitious doubts about God smiting them down. Israel will declare that it has no obligation to prove itself to anyone except to its own citizenry. Any arab who cannot swear allegiance to Israel will be removed to the new state of Islamic Palestine to be formed within the boundaries of Jordan.

Can a Jew demand this? Of course, a real Jew can. (And should.) Israel will need new leaders. Pulpy, pampered, overfed, cowardly, frightened Jews should stay away from the US State Dept. or any other organized body that attempts to meddle into or curtail Israel's sovereign rights. Foreign or NYC Jews who belong to the NIF or TIP need not apply. Soft-skinned, emotionally needy, servile, exhausted, crooked, avaricious, vain, corrupt Jews need not apply. No Madoffs allowed.
Invite the Belgians to attend a ten-thousand missile salute and a flotilla landing to take place in their capital.

Viva Israel from the Secular Christians 4 Zionism!

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net.



Gloria Center

Listen to Lieberman

Maligned foreign minister’s plan better than current notion of two-state solution

By Haim Misgav

All those people who are now calling for Avigdor Lieberman to quit, or be fired, should know that we’ve seen similar conduct by previous foreign ministers. For example, once upon a time we had Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who worked behind his prime minister’s back and formulated the contemptible Oslo Accords without the PM’s knowledge.

I cannot recall what all those people who currently seek Lieberman’s head thought about Peres’ abovementioned move, undertaken with the help of his adjutant, Yossi Beilin. However, I’m certain that they did not demand PM Rabin fire the two, despite the diplomatic folly they dragged him into.

I have one question for all those people who now seek to crucify the foreign minister for daring to present his plan (and keep in mind this is no more than a plan at this time) – did they stop for a moment to examine it? That is, perhaps it includes some measure of logic?

In fact, what did Avigdor Lieberman tell us? The “Palestinian people” wants, in practice, a “Palestinian state” clear of any Jews (in German this was called Judenrein) in Judea and Samaria, another such state in the Gaza Strip, and yet another one, similar to the other two, across the Jordan River.

At the same time, the Palestinians (who were not recognized as a people by the nations of the world until 1967) want the State of Israel to be a bi-national state, or a multicultural one (to borrow a phrase from the anarchists from the leftist anti-Zionist camp) that would be home to a very large Arab majority, which is already demanding cultural autonomy, as well as to hundreds of thousands of refugees (and possibly many more) who shall return to their villages and to the communities they left in 1948.

This is, in fact, what Avigdor Lieberman seeks to avert.

Clearly marked borders
If there is no solution, he says, let’s turn the two states – the State of Israel and Palestine – into nation-states that are only home to the nationalities they were established for. Such solution is only possible if we see the tradeoff of populated areas. The Triangle area in northern Israel, for example, with its land and homes and residents, would be handed over to the Palestinian Authority, while areas such as Gush Etzion, Ariel, and Maale Adumim, with their residents, shall shift into the State of Israel’s territory.

We shall see clearly marked borders. All the Jews would be on one side of the border, and all the Arabs would be on the other side. A homogenous Jewish parliament without Ahmad Tibi and Taleb al-Sana. What could be bad about that?

I’m not saying this should be the solution, or that there are no other possible solutions, such as one federation from Sea to River that has two houses of parliament, a Jewish and an Arab one, as is the case in other places in the world.

I don’t know what the best, safest solution is for us Jews, who already experienced quite a few pogroms and Holocausts, not only at the hands of the Muslims but mostly at the hands of European nations. Yet I’m certain about one thing: The “solution” being offered today, premised on the current “two states vision,” would bring about the Jewish state’s demise within a very short period of time.

No security arrangements would prevent the Iranians, for example, from deploying missiles on the eastern boundaries of central Israel towns. They already did it in the Gaza Strip and in southern Lebanon after the IDF foolishly withdraw from there.

Ahmad Tibi and Taleb al-Sana will apparently be happy with such solution. But we must not agree to even hold a real public debate on issues that are crucial to our existence. And so, automatically disqualifying Avigdor Lieberman is a move that must not succeed.


Ynet News