Outline (Steve Pack)
-Geoff Tudisco: The British refusal to withdraw from 1936-39. Britain sought to maintain its influence in the Middle East and its heavy investment of time and resources into the area caused them to refuse to leave the Middle East without having something to show for its mandate authority. The endowment effect states that Britain would risk more to maintain its influence in the Middle East than it would spend to gain such an influence. Thus, because Britain invested so much in the region it became vitally important for Britain, so important that Britain was unwilling to leave despite the Arab uprisings.
-Ben Orbach: A few points about Prospect Theory were clarified. People that are classified as Prospect Theorists, do not choose this title of classification for themselves. In most cases, an actor can not choose whether he is rational or not. Actors usually do not choose the reference points that cause them to act out of a basement of fear. Prospect Theory is a theory that explains a puzzle or motivation behind the action of a certain party. It is not a form of classical strategy. Classical strategy is a rational choice, prospect theory is a psychological phenomenon. Effort Justification and the Endowment Effect are very similar. These theories state that an actor will risk more to keep something than he would to acquire the same thing in the first place. In addition, the more loss that the actor incurs trying to keep something, the less likely the actor is to yield that object or thing. We tried to apply these principle to the situation of the English in Palestine before giving up the mandate. We concluded that the English were trying to maintain their reputation as a world power. Therefore, the more costs they sunk into Palestine, the harder it was for them to leave. We also had a discussion as to how historically, from the Zionists until the present day Netanyahu government, Israel's most important interest is survival. Therefore, security is crucial to their society from the personal level of almost every 18 year old male and female going to the army, to the political and strategic level of maintaining a security zone in Southern Lebanon. In contrast, for the Arabs of Palestine, sovereignty has always been the crucial principle of concern. From both the McMahon Hussein treaty and the White Paper of 1939, the Arab desire for a sovereign nation is evident. Also today, security is not as a big a concern for the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority as achieving its own state or entity is the West Bank and Gaza.
-Michael Janson: Why would British not just withdrawal from Area? Endowment Effect - Would risk more to keep something than you would pay to gain it in the first place. Effort Justification - The more you put into an effort, the more important it becomes. When rational ideas cant explain behavior, then you can bring in prospect theories.
-Adam Spiegelberg: British policy --the 39 White Paper -- can be explained by prospect theory because they feared the loss of Arab support over the gains of any other policy Endowment effect = effort justification -- the more effort you put into achieving a certain goal, the more likely you are to continue to attempt to attain your objective the more losses one incurs in a situation, the more value will be added to the situation loss aversion principal explains the Zionist Jews fervor in fighting the Arabs in the War of Independence because they had the land and security that they had acquired through independence to defend. The Non-Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, were more worried about gains. Loss Aversion dictates that one will be more worried about loss than about gains so therefore, loss aversion is theoretical basis for the Israeli victory in 48-49.
-Geoff Tudisco: A comparison between the White Paper and the Sharif-McMahon Correspondence. The Correspondence between McMahon and Hussein Ibn-Ali was a British ploy to gain Arab support in its war against the Ottoman Empire. The White Paper was designed to align Britain with the Arabs by allowing the formation of a Palestinian state in alliance with Britain. Both agreements promised an Arab state, and both agreements were motivated by British security concerns leading up to World Wars I and II.
-Ben Orbach: We reviewed the Peel Commission as well as the White Paper of 1939. We concluded that both were British reactions to Arab violence. We compared the McMahon Hussein Correspondence to the White Paper of 1939. Both were British documents issued to Arab actors in order to win Arab support against a British opponent in the context of a world conflict. The Arab actors in each case were promised sovereignty in exchange for their support of the British war cause. The British were motivated by war time interests, mainly the need for oil.
-Michael Janson: White Paper said a Palestinian state would be formed ( British, in WW2, Sept. 1, 1939) - Husein-McMahon Correspondence similar because British made promise to Arab Nation if Arabs revolted against the Turks- Both promised sovereignty for support Peel Commission Report - for partition, equal [?] parts each Strategic Interests - Reputation to maintain - cant withdrawal...
-Larico Harley: White Paper, May 17, 1939 The British recognized a Palestinian State for the Arabs. The White Paper was composed in order to gain support with the Arab peoples in the oil region before W.W.II. The White Paper of 1939 was Similar to the McMahon Sherrif agreement in which the British attempted to get aid against the Ottoman Empire in W.W.I by recognizing an Arab State. The White Paper of 1939 outraged the Jewish Population who vowed to wage a war as if there was no White Paper.
-John Valentine: The legality of Israeli settlements: Israelis have been questioned as to the legality of their settlements in occupied territories. Some have claimed that the settlements are illegal due to the international norm agreed upon at the 4th Geneva Convention which declares that states cannot move their citizens into occupied territory (territory that had belonged to another state.) However, at the time of Israel's formation, it was unclear who occupied the West Bank; only two countries had recognized Jordan's occupation of the West Bank. Israel claims that the West Bank was not allocated to any country during the second partition of Palestine (formation of Israel.), and hence they claim that the settlements are legal within international law.
-Adam Spiegelberg: The Israelis contend that the 4th Geneva Conventions stipulation that you cannot transport your citizens into an occupied territory did not apply to the West Bank because it was not internationally recognized as any one state's territories -- only Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan as the legitimate possessor of the West Bank
-Michael Janson: Unallocated portion of the Ottoman Empire, Allocations - Transjordan 1922 - Palestine Partition ( Palestine Mandate 1922)- State of Israel Created May 14, 1948 - West Bank was Annexed by Jordan annexation was recognized by two countries, not intl. community. Thus Israel argues that migration to West Bank legal because West Bank was never legally owned by Jordan.
-Geoff Tudisco: It was argued that there was no need for an actor to take credit for an act of terror because the motivation or political goal of such an act can be determined. The problem with this argument is that time is needed for the political goal to be realized. The Peel Commission report was a response to the Arab violence, but the Arab uprisings were not designed with the political goal of gaining recognition from Britain.
-Ben Orbach: We reviewed the differences between sabotage and terrorism. Using the accident of the two Israeli helicopters colliding, we tried to create hypothetical situations of terrorism and sabotage. We concluded that terrorism and sabotage are not mutually exclusive. In other words it is possible for something to be both terrorism and sabotage. A hypothetical example could be a Hamas attack in the United States in retaliation for the extradition of Marzouk to Israel. The attack would be motivated by personal vengeance, but also for the reason of keeping the United States out of the Israel-Hamas conflict.
-Adam Spiegelberg: same event can be interpreted in two different ways -- to decide whether an act is sabotage or terrorism you must look at the objectives of the group that benefits from the act. If objective is political, then the act is terrorism. When sabotage becomes not just revenge, and takes on more meaning than that, it becomes an act of terrorism.