I’ve been thinking about the issue in terms of (armchair) game theory:
Ostensibly, both parties essentially claim to be playing a a tit-for-tat strategy in an interated prisoner dilemma where the other party is a DefectBot that can’t be cooperated with. Who played “Defect” first and when is a matter of dispute: arguments usually involve to events going back to at least the British Empire, if not the Ottoman Empire or even the Roman Empire. Regardless of who started it, both parties think (or at least claim to think) that they can’t break the defection cycle by attempting to cooperate unilaterally, hence they defect.
Obviously this analysis is simplistic since it models the Israeli and the Palestinians each as a single agent. But since, as you say, Palestinians tend to more or less unwillingly support Hamas and the Israeli tend to support Netanyahu and his coallition government (also more or less unwillingly?), I think this two-agent model is a reasonable first-order approximation.
Another issue is that there doesn’t appear to be a Schelling point that both parties recognize as a “default” solution for the bargaining problem they face. It seems that both parties operate under a framework of “This land is ours. You have no right to be here. Anything we might concede you is more than you deserve and you’d better be grateful and accept it without question before we change our mind.” This isn’t conducive to productive negotiation.
Your approximation is roughly correct. I would only add that while your statement about “our land” does represent the pro-settler faction of Israeli society, I do believe there’s a large double-digit percentage who are “settlement-apathetic”, and whose support can be “purchased” by whichever political side offers them greater quiet and prosperity in which to lead their private lives. They vote for peace when it looks like it will work, and when they are convinced (not necessarily in relation to fact, as you noted) that the Palestinians just want to exterminate us and will try indefatigibly, they vote for military repression.
There’s also an internal contradiction here: Bibi Netanyahu is an American-style neoliberal. People don’t actually like that here. At all. They only really put up with it because it comes as a package deal with the “security through military action” platform of the Likud and the religious idealism of Jewish Home.
Bibi can only keep his job by maintaining quiet, but whenever he’s successful in that, people remember all their Western-style everyday-life problems that are because of Bibi.
Ostensibly, both parties essentially claim to be playing a a tit-for-tat strategy in an interated prisoner dilemma where the other party is a DefectBot that can’t be cooperated with.
Israel has an various periods starting with Yitzhak Rabin attempted to play unilateral cooperation under the theory that this would lead to cooperation on the other end. Hasn’t worked out that way.
It would help to actually look at the history rather than simply completing the pattern and pretending to be wise.
“This s our land, and anybody who suggests that somebody else might have some modicum of claim over it must be pretending to be wise and <insert teacher’s password here>.”
Israel has an various periods starting with Yitzhak Rabin attempted to play unilateral cooperation under the theory that this would lead to cooperation on the other end. Hasn’t worked out that way.
“Anything we might concede you is more than you deserve and you’d better be grateful and accept it without question before we change our mind.”
It seems that both parties operate under a framework of “This land is ours. You have no right to be here. Anything we might concede you is more than you deserve and you’d better be grateful and accept it without question before we change our mind.”
If that was an accurate description, there would be no Palestinians there at all.
I’ve been thinking about the issue in terms of (armchair) game theory:
Ostensibly, both parties essentially claim to be playing a a tit-for-tat strategy in an interated prisoner dilemma where the other party is a DefectBot that can’t be cooperated with.
Who played “Defect” first and when is a matter of dispute: arguments usually involve to events going back to at least the British Empire, if not the Ottoman Empire or even the Roman Empire.
Regardless of who started it, both parties think (or at least claim to think) that they can’t break the defection cycle by attempting to cooperate unilaterally, hence they defect.
Obviously this analysis is simplistic since it models the Israeli and the Palestinians each as a single agent. But since, as you say, Palestinians tend to more or less unwillingly support Hamas and the Israeli tend to support Netanyahu and his coallition government (also more or less unwillingly?), I think this two-agent model is a reasonable first-order approximation.
Another issue is that there doesn’t appear to be a Schelling point that both parties recognize as a “default” solution for the bargaining problem they face. It seems that both parties operate under a framework of “This land is ours. You have no right to be here. Anything we might concede you is more than you deserve and you’d better be grateful and accept it without question before we change our mind.”
This isn’t conducive to productive negotiation.
Your approximation is roughly correct. I would only add that while your statement about “our land” does represent the pro-settler faction of Israeli society, I do believe there’s a large double-digit percentage who are “settlement-apathetic”, and whose support can be “purchased” by whichever political side offers them greater quiet and prosperity in which to lead their private lives. They vote for peace when it looks like it will work, and when they are convinced (not necessarily in relation to fact, as you noted) that the Palestinians just want to exterminate us and will try indefatigibly, they vote for military repression.
There’s also an internal contradiction here: Bibi Netanyahu is an American-style neoliberal. People don’t actually like that here. At all. They only really put up with it because it comes as a package deal with the “security through military action” platform of the Likud and the religious idealism of Jewish Home.
Bibi can only keep his job by maintaining quiet, but whenever he’s successful in that, people remember all their Western-style everyday-life problems that are because of Bibi.
It would help to actually look at the history rather than simply completing the pattern and pretending to be wise.
Israel has an various periods starting with Yitzhak Rabin attempted to play unilateral cooperation under the theory that this would lead to cooperation on the other end. Hasn’t worked out that way.
“This s our land, and anybody who suggests that somebody else might have some modicum of claim over it must be pretending to be wise and <insert teacher’s password here>.”
“Anything we might concede you is more than you deserve and you’d better be grateful and accept it without question before we change our mind.”
If that was an accurate description, there would be no Palestinians there at all.