follows is an outline of PS498 discussion from 1/29. The outline has been
streamlined, and the comments from individual contributors has been added to
the relevant positions in the outline. The individual contributors have been named.
-Michael Janson: In class today, initially at issue was the degree of rationality of relevant actors in the early formation of the Zionist state. The Arab Nationalists generally refused to negotiate or make concessions because of previous bad experiences. Additionally, compromise was not a possibility - complete Arab control was sought. Ideologues tend not to cooperate - they fight and die for principle. Ideologues are generally less likely to seek compromise - to mix good with evil is not acceptable. At issue was the various ideological influences on early Arab - Zionist relations.
-Larico Harley: Zionists were Classical Strategists in the early 1900s. They attempted through the Balfour Declaration to work with the Imperialist to help in their acquisition of a homeland. They also used diplomacy with the United Nations by treating them well, unlike the Arabs who refused to recognize the UN.
-Adam Spiegelberg: IDEOLOGUES: When two sides to a conflict act in an ideological way instead of a pragmatic way, chances are that the result will be no result. Neither side will be willing to compromise on their convictions, therefore a stalemate will exist as existed between the Arabs and Jews as a whole until Israel first reached a pragmatic agreement with Egypt and still exists between Syria and Israel concerning the Golan Heights and Israel and various terrorists groups concerning other places in the West Bank.
-Benjamin Orbach: Classical strategists are people that combine force with diplomacy in a strategical manner to achieve their desired goal. An example would be Sadat's military attack of Israel in 1973 in order to attain a cease fire with new territorial boundary lines in the Sinai.
-Michael Janson: We discussed the difference between sabotage and terrorism. Sabotage seeks to reduce capabilities, terrorism is a strategic means for political ends. Early Arab violence was sabotage as it was not concerted for political ends.
-Chris Barrett: After much debate, SABOTAGE and TERRORISM were determined to mean the following: Sabotage is merely a way of disabling capabilities. Also, it is NOT political-tis more about personal gain or simple reprisal. Normally, a saboteur is acting alone. Although, this is not to say that a saboteur can not have a political agenda or strategy, in which case it is... Terrorism which is all about politics. Terrorism is a form of strategic objective. Generally terrorists attack civilians in order to prove their resolve or inflict harm/hurt so that the terrorists plan is realized. A fictitious example of sabotage would be an airline worker who bombs one of the airlines planes in retaliation for that workers termination of employment. That same example becomes terrorism when an airline employee bombs the plane because they want to prove their resolve to the administration of the airline that the airline unions demand must be met.
-Larico Harley: Sabotage is a violent act by a person or group that is not about gain in political objectives and based on personal frustration. Example: From the Arab riots and General Strike (April 1936 1939) through the Birth of Israel and the 1948 War; World War II (September 1939. Terror is a violent act that is used to seek political gains and is based on a set plan in accordance with objectives of the group. Ex: Arabs killed the Zionists in order to help their chances of getting a greater Syria. They wanted to limit the ability of the Zionists to prevent them from obtaining a greater Syria.
-Adam Spiegelberg: Terrorism involves a coordinated effort of violence and destruction, the desired results of which are political in nature. Sabotage involves acts of violence and destruction which are senseless and disorganized and which are meant to serve as personal acts of revenge. The Arab-Zionist Conflict of the 20s can be seen as sabotage while the conflict during 30s was one of organized terrorism.
-Joel Becker: sabotage- small scale usually, can be big depending of situation, usually to satisfy personal resolve or frustration. terrorism-to achieve political gains, large scale, ideologies must be involved, strategic gains.
-Benjamin Orbach: We concluded that the major difference between terrorism and sabotage is that terrorism is driven by ideology and is a strategic act, while sabotage is a direct attack based upon personal motives and not politics. An example of terrorism would be Begin and the Irgun blowing up the King David Hotel as a strategic political move to dictate to the British that the Irgun was a Zionist terrorist force that deserved their attention. An example of sabotage would be the Arab riots of 1929, which was classified as personally motivated violence not a coordinated political effort. Although there are special circumstances where an individual act can be defined as terrorism (example of Yigal Amir's assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in order to stop the peace process and strengthen the political goal of Greater Israel), most individual acts of violence are classified as sabotage. The reason being that they are usually motivated by personal not political goals.
-Geoff Tudisco: One issue that seemed to be quite important was the difference between acts of sabotage and acts of terror.
*Sabotage was defined as a violent act of retribution, an act which does not have a socio-political objective in mind. An example would be the case of anti-zionist Arab uprising of 1929 which was retributive violence, where the goal was not strategic -- their attacks were for the sake of hurting the Zionists. There is no higher political purpose in mind when the violent act is carried out.
*Terrorism is an act which has socio-political motives in mind. Acts of terror have the purpose of influencing the communication between two parties. Begin's guerrilla war against the occupying British army relayed the message
that the Zionists did not welcome the British occupation in Palestine. "Payment in kind" entails that an act has a greater political purpose, that an act is designed to influence policy. The previously mentioned Arab uprising was not carried out with the intent of causing a shift in policy, but actions like this did end up causing the British mandate to limit the Zionist migration to Palestine. The violent acts by the Arabs did not effects, but by 1936, the British supported the idea of a partition of Palestine.
-Michael Janson: We summarized Early Arab Nationalism into three phases: 1.) Concessions granted too early; Hussien-McMahon & Feisal-Weizman. 2.) 1929 to 1936 - sporadic violence; attacks on Jerusalem and Jaiffa, massacre at the Western Wall. 3.) 1936 - 1939 - concerted effort to sabotage Zionist State - Arab civil disobedience, non-payment of taxes, and efforts to shut down municipal government.
-Michael Janson: Psychological perspectives on deterrence were discussed. Prospect Theory explains a great deal of early attachment to land previously held and to current amplification of the real benefit of territory in the Middle East. Information is filtered through Reference Points that establish what is known to be true - contrary information is ignored. Effort Justification is the process by which an actor will seek to justify their efforts - in this case, decades of war makes a goal ever more important - actors will see goals in the context of how much effort they have put toward attaining them.
-Larico Harley: Prospect theorists believe that people or nations fear loss more than they value gain. Items have more value after they have been acquired than before they had been acquired. Ex: Assad took risks for peace in fear of losing the Golan heights permanently
-John Valentine: We discussed prospect theory extensively today, and one of the examples used to explain it was the status of the Golan Heights. Prospect theory describes leaders as loss-averse; that is, they will act in ways to minimize loss (sometimes taking risks.) Prof. Tanter mentioned that Assad was willing to take risks for peace in 1981 when he joined the peace process in Madrid. (The risk he took was going to a peace process that was extremely unpopular in his country, where he is in a small minority.) Why would he do so? Assad was (and is) fearful of losing the Golan Heights: it was (and is) possible that he could lose the Golan permanently if any peace issue finalized the status of the Golan. The Israelis are also fearful of losing the Golan; prospect theory states that if both sides are loss-averse, compromise is more likely to result.
-Adam Spiegelberg: PROSPECT THEORY: Prospect theory states that foregone gains are less painful than perceived losses. Part of this theory lies in anchoring and reference point. The revisionists, the right-wing part of the Zionist movement, believe that Israel has always belonged to the Jews. Therefore using a reference point of 2500 years ago, the revisionists standpoint was that any state calling itself Israel must include all of Greater Israel or nothing at all. To them, it was a zero-sum game. Even if to the rest of the Zionist movement, a partition plan that gave half of Palestine to the Jews was acceptable, to the revisionists, a partition could only be seen as a loss. The same holds true for the Palestinians as they believed that anything less then a greater Syria would be considered a loss.
-Benjamin Orbach: Prospect theory was defined as the concept that leaders will take greater chances to minimize their losses rather than to make greater gains. An example of this would be Assad going to the Madrid peace conference in 1991 because he feared losing the Golan permanently if he did not attend. Anchoring is the setting of static reference points that cause restrictions in negotiations or conflicts. An example can be taken from the Golan here as well. Syria's anchor point is their demand that the Golan be returned as a precursor to negotiations with Israel. Netanyahu's government's refusal to meet this demand, as well as Assad's refusal to withdraw it, prevents negotiations from occurring.
Geoff Tudisco: *Prospect Theory states that people would rather not lose something, than possibly gain something. The idea is that you would demand more for what you have than you would be willing to pay for it. Reference points make negotiations difficult. The Zionists had the anchor view of a Greater Israel, the Arabs resisted the Zionist claim. Anchor views have the ability to cause a group to resist new information. Assad's 1981 entrance into the peace process was a major change, but many Jews did not accept that Assad may have changed. Misperceptions grow out of this refusal to accept new information. Assad's attendance at the peace conference fits prospect theory -- he took the chance at the conference because he feared that he would permanently lose the Golan Heights if he were not present. He decreased his chance of losing more by attending the peace talks.
-Michael Janson: We discussed the application of Prisoners Dilemma and Chicken to the Middle East. Prisoners Dilemma best describes the early times up to and including 1967 war, because neither side could stand down and thus be exploited. The 1973 war seems to have brought about a period of more desire to cooperate because war was to be avoided by both Israel and Egypt - hence Chicken is a more applicable analogy.
-Larico Harley: After 1967 the Arab nations and Israel became involved in a game of Chicken allowing them to cut deals. These deals were made in order to try to avoid loss in accordance with the Prospect Theory.
-Adam Spiegelberg: Chicken v. Prisoners Dilemma: Before the 73 war, the situation that existed in the ME was that of a prisoners dilemma which resulted in stalemate. After the 73 war, the situation changed to that of a game of chicken in which various states began to look at the situation more pragmatically and realize that if the did not cooperate they both would surely be destroyed. This made finding a solution much more palpable.
-Benjamin Orbach: Prisoner's dilemma is a theory in which it benefits a single party to cooperate or defect before his opponent can do the same. The gains of such a cooperation or defection are greater than mutual cooperation or mutual conflict. An example can be found in the case of the Zionists wining and dining the UN investigative partition team while the Palestinian Arabs would not meet with them. Through their actions, the Zionists sold the idea of partition to the UN delegation. Chicken is a situation where it benefits both parties to cooperate with each other because the result of non-cooperation is the worst possible scenario. Chicken theory is applicable to the post 1973 relations between Israel and Egypt since both countries were looking more to cooperate with each other, rather than go to war again.