MARTIN

SHERMAN

“The Two-State solution” is the constantly repeated remedy for bringing peace to the Middle East. Solemnly declared over and over again by world leaders, public figures and journalists throughout the world, the Two-State solution calls on Israel to let the Palestinians have their own independent state, and thereby at long last, Israel will be accepted by the neighboring Arab peoples. It has been declared so many times that it has become a global mantra, a hallowed principle that brooks no deviation or obstruction – from Israel. But in its insistence, an enormous amount of history – past and current – is ignored, as are the declarations of intent made by Israel’s many mortal enemies. Also overlooked are the dangerous consequences to Israel’s security with each step it has taken in order to comply with the conditions for the Two-State idea.
The alternative to the two-state paradigm would appear to be a single state for all the people in the region of post-1922 Palestine. But demographically, this could lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Another idea is transfer of Arab populations to neighboring countries. However, forcibly imposed this would undoubtedly end any chance of peaceful co-existence with the Arab and Muslim world – probably for generations to come.

Is there another solution? Martin Sherman offers a bold answer in a series of articles, which have appeared in The Jerusalem Post. He says that all policy must contend with prevailing realities as they are and not as we wish them to be. He cautions: “As policy input, political correctness is a poor substitute for factual correctness. Similarly, good intentions are no guarantee of good policy. Indeed, often quite the reverse is true.”

Martin Sherman, who grew up in South Africa, has had an eventful academic, military and public career. Graduating from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg in 1970 with a B.Sc. in Physics and Geology, he also has a degree in Business Administration, as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations from Tel Aviv University. He has lectured at numerous universities and written papers for many prominent academic journals. He is the author of two books: Despots, Democrats and the Determinants of International Conflict; and The Politics of Water in The Middle East, (Macmillan). Dr. Sherman is currently the academic director of Jerusalem Summit. 
His opinion pieces have appeared in most major newspapers in Israel (both in English and Hebrew). He has also been interviewed on radio and TV including CNN and BBC.

See website: http://www.martinsherman.org

We present here a slightly abridged version of an article about the Two-State solution and its alternatives, which appeared on January 6, 2012 in Sherman’s regular Jerusalem Post column “Into the Fray.”

To be or not to be – that is the

question

By MARTIN SHERMAN

“The maximum any Israeli government can offer is less than the minimum any Palestinian leader can accept. The real gap between both sides is much greater than perceived, and that gap is growing.”

Maj.-Gen.(reserve) Giora Eiland,
former head of the National Security Council, 2009

The Jewish people is rapidly approaching a crucial juncture. It will soon have to decide whether or not it is willing to maintain its nation-state; whether it is willing to forgo over a century of unparalleled sacrifice, effort and achievement to satisfy the cynical and hypocritical dictates of political correctness; whether it is prepared to surrender substance for form; to forsake real national freedoms for the artificial facade of feigned individual equality.
As the infeasibility of the two-state paradigm becomes increasingly apparent, even to the staunchest of its erstwhile supporters, the need to formulate a cogent alternative that will preserve the Jewish nation-state is becoming increasingly pressing.
It is not only the disillusioned among the Israeli Left who are expressing ever-more despair at the prospect of implementing the two-state solution. It is increasingly being dismissed as a realistic – or even desirable – aspiration by Palestinians, and not only radical Islamists who reject it because it entails recognizing a Jewish state. Thus for example, in his recent book, What is a Palestinian State Worth? even Sari Nusseibeh, a show-case “moderate,” expresses “heretical” doubts as to whether the struggle for statehood merits the effort.

Significant shifts

This should be seen against the shift in the general Palestinian attitude toward the two-state principle, reflected in a strangely under-reported and grossly misreported poll conducted recently for The Israel Project by Stanley Greenberg together with Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.
According to the poll, there was a “huge drop in acceptance of a two-state solution.” 52% said they would not accept such a solution – up from 36% less than a year previously – while two-thirds rejected the principle that one of the states should be a Jewish homeland. A similar proportion said, “The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state;” and 84% said that “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state.”
Only the grossly undiscerning will fail to notice the tangible change in official Palestinian negotiating strategy in recent years. The pursuit of a two-state solution has become a leisurely distraction rather than a seriously sought after end-of-conflict arrangement. Far-reaching concessions – difficult for Israel to accept even as part of a final agreement – are being presented as conditions for merely resuming negotiations, delaying them for extended periods – hardly a rational tactic for a people eager to extricate themselves from onerous “occupation.”

Facing the inevitable

In view of accumulating evidence, it would be imprudent for Israel to continue deluding itself that Palestinians entertain any serious intentions as to the two-state solution – other than in the two-stage sense. Indeed, the accelerating erosion of support for the idea makes the formulation of operational alternatives a pressing imperative.
The alternatives that have been discussed most often fall into two categories. Those which entail: (a) conferring Israel citizenship on the Palestinians – i.e. various versions of the one-state approach; and (b) transferring civilian rule over the Palestinians to some non-Palestinian Authority Arab administration – such as Jordan or prominent local clan-leaders traditionally well-disposed to Israel, who would preside over scattered enclaves.
For a variety of reasons, neither of these offers a stable long-term formula. As a detailed critique of these alternatives is beyond the scope of this article, I will restrict myself to the following observations.

Fatal flaws

Regarding the first category, the inclusion of the Palestinian Arab population across the 1967 Green Line into Israel as fully fledged citizens would create an unbearable socio-economic burden on the country that would not only jeopardize its character as a Jewish state but as an advanced Western democracy as well – a problem many EU countries are beginning to experience, even with proportionately far smaller “discordant” populations.
It is a measure that would create difficulties far more complex and profound than could be dealt with – as some naively hope – by adopting a regional electoral system and gerrymandering the boundaries of the constituencies to minimize the impact of non-Jewish voters. Quite apart from the legal challenges – before an inherently amenable Supreme Court – as to the equity of such an arrangement, and possible mass relocation of voters to other constituencies, the cultural and economic disparities would tear society apart.
Regarding the second category, it is wishful thinking – especially in the wake of the Arab Spring – to hope that any “traditional” regime would consent to be seen as “pulling the Zionists’ chestnuts out of the fire.”
It is more than doubtful that any Arab ruler – whether a clan leader or the Jordanian monarch – would be willing, or indeed able, to function for any length of time as what would be perceived as a perfidious “prison warder.”
Moreover, in light of the instability in the region, it would irresponsible to adopt a long-term policy based on the assumption that the regime in Amman would not be replaced or at least dominated by elements inimical to any cooperation with Israel.
In both cases, the consequences of these alternatives are liable to be worse than those they are designed to avoid.

The humanitarian paradigm

These factors – the eroding relevance of the two-state paradigm, the ominous emergence of the one-state paradigm and the inadequacy of proffered alternatives – led to the proposal in my two preceding columns (in The Jerusalem Post) of the humanitarian paradigm, which addressed the fate of the Palestinian Arabs in a comprehensive, non-coercive manner. Operationally it comprised three constituent elements.

• Ending discriminatory treatment of the Palestinian refugees by abolishing or transforming UNRWA.
• Ending discrimination against Palestinians in the Arab world and the prohibition on their acquiring citizenship of countries in which they have been resident for decades.
• Providing generous relocation finance directly to individual Palestinian breadwinners to allow them to build better futures for themselves in third countries of their choice.
Unsurprisingly, numerous reservations were raised as to the feasibility of the proposal. These will now be addressed – at least in part.

The feasibility factor – I

The proponents of the Oslowian two-state principle are the last who can invoke feasibility as a precondition for the admissibility of an operational proposal –at least as an item on the agenda of public debate. After all, this is a formula that has been tried for almost two decades, and despite massive international endorsement and financial support, has wrought nothing but death, destruction and despair. Surely a proposal that has proved so disastrous should by any rational yardstick be branded unworkable and hence unfeasible. And if the demonstrable infeasibility, futility and failure of the two-state paradigm has not disqualified it as meriting serious consideration, why should a conceptually consistent, untried humanitarian paradigm not be accorded the same opportunity – at least as a legitimate topic for debate.

The feasibility factor – II

Inevitably, any radical departure from long-established conventional wisdom will be met with stiff resistance. However, the existing configuration of public opinion should not be considered immutable. Indeed, imagine how hopeless the notion of a Palestinian state was in the late 1960s in the wake of Israel’s sweeping Six Day War victory. Even in the late 1980s the idea was dismissed as unrealistic, unreasonable radicalism by all but a minuscule albeit determined minority on the far Left. However, it was a minority that managed to enlist the resolve, resources and resourcefulness to transform the marginal into mainstream in remarkably short order.
Given the paltry funding and the puny efforts that have characterized Israel’s public diplomacy in the past two decades, the current public perception can hardly be taken as persuasive gauge of what might be achieved with adequate financing and appropriate focus. Today the entire public diplomacy budget is reportedly of the order of magnitude of what a medium-to-large Israeli corporation spends on promoting fast-food or snacks.

The feasibility factor – III

According to the International Monetary Fund, Israel’s GDP is approaching a quarter trillion dollars. If it were to allot less than one half of 1% of GDP to public diplomacy, that would be over $1 billion – enough to swamp anything the George Soroses of the world devote to Israel’s delegitimization.
Given the nation’s achievements in many other fields of human endeavor, one can only surmise what impact a determined assault on the authenticity and legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative, financed by an annual $1b. budget over two decades – the length of the post-Oslowian era – might have on the acceptability of a humanitarian rehabilitation of Palestinian Arabs, cruelly misled by their leaders for decades.
Indeed, important elements of the humanitarian paradigm are already gaining international legitimacy. The anomalous and detrimental role of UNRWA – a pivotal element in the proposal – has been recognized by countries such as Canada and the Netherlands which have either curtailed their funding to the organization or are considering doing so. It is distinctly plausible that the US could be convinced – especially in these days of austerity – to terminate its funding for this wasteful and counter-productive body which perpetuates the Palestinians’ dependency and statelessness.
Likewise, the brutal discrimination against Palestinians in Arab states, allegedly to “help preserve their identity,” is also the subject of increasing international attention and censure. Pressure should be brought to bear on Arab regimes to end this unacceptable practice, even if it means temporarily channeling budgets formerly allotted to UNRWA to facilitate their integration as citizens of the countries of their longstanding residence.
These elements cannot be detached from the overall thrust of the humanitarian paradigm, which is to focus on ameliorating the situation of the individual Palestinian rather than promoting the nefarious goals of an invented national entity.

Estimating costs

The estimated cost of implementation is strongly dependent on the level of compensation and the size of the Palestinian population in the “territories,” which is the subject of intense debate.
A few years ago, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducted a survey on the level of compensation Palestinian refugees considered fair to forgo the “right of return.” If we take more than double the minimum amount specified by most pollees as fair compensation for relocation/rehabilitation, and if we adopt a high-end estimate of the Palestinian population, the total cost would be around $150b. for the West Bank Palestinians and $250b. if Gaza is included. This is a fraction of the US expenditure on its decade-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have produced results that are less than a resounding success.
Spread over a period equivalent to the current post-Oslo era, this sum would comprise a yearly outlay of no more than a few percentage points of current GDP – something Israel could well afford on its own.
If additional OECD countries were to contribute, the total relocation/rehabilitation of the Palestinian Arabs could be achieved with an almost imperceptible economic burden.

Continued from Part 2:  http://truthandsurvival.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/how-to-solve-your-problems-and-save-the-world-part-2/  

A new stage in humanity’s

development

By RALPH DOBRIN

Author of “How to Avoid Armageddon”

Can be ordered through Amazon

This is the third part my talk, whose full title is: “How to solve your problems … and save the world”? In the earlier installments we offered the key to avoiding and solving most of our own personal problems, through the understanding and practise of truthfulness as a way of life.

And similarly, it is truthfulness practised by more and more people everywhere that will save the world? Oh come on Ralph, the reader might say. Be serious for goodness sake. How is truthfulness going to solve pollution and poverty? How is truthfulness going to cope with the likes of Ahmadinijad and Zawahiri? Well just think about it. Throughout history it has usually been the opposite of truthfulness and honesty – it has been lies and deceit that bungling, inept leaders, scoundrels and tyrants have used to gain and keep power and to wreak havoc and bring boundless misery into the world.   

Even in the more benign democracies of the world, political factors make truthfulness among all the aspirants to power, something very conditional, even a handicap. To a large extent, gaining power, even in these democracies, is a game, a contest in which, very often, the winner takes all. And the gullibility of the general public panders to these games. Consequently, governance – which is really management on a large scale – governance is mediocre at best, and sometimes quite pathetic. In totalitarian states, not only public gullibility enables a self-serving dictatorship, but dread and fear as well. But for the moment, I’m talking about Israel and other democracies.

In our earlier blogs on this subject, we had talked about wishful thinking and holding onto old ideas and concepts no matter how things change or what new information emerges? And automatically rejecting any ideas or even events and developments that might not tally with our own perceptions. It’s called cognitive dissonance. It’s really a form of lying to ourselves. And we mentioned how these very common tendencies can prevent clear and sensible thinking.

Well, with any issue that has a political bearing, cognitive dissonance readily prevails, and often, even normally level-headed, intelligent, honest people can have their ability to think objectively and comprehensively, noticeably diminished. Right wing or left wing, religious or liberal, conservative, centrist, socialist – it doesn’t matter. Bring up any issue with a political bearing and intellectual integrity and rational thinking are often seriously compromised. Not always, not with everyone, but all too often.

If we take a brief, candid look at Israel’s situation we find that Israel faces bigger, far more dangerous challenges, probably than ever before; quite probably no other country in the world faces such colossal threats and challenges. That’s why the people of Israel have to figure out how to make the right decisions regarding every aspect of their national well-being and security. The trouble is that just about every issue in Israel has a political bearing, arousing heated, divisive squabbling along party lines and coalition hanky-panky. And this makes wise, sensible, crucially-needed decision-making extremely difficult, if not impossible. On the other hand, if government decisions were based primarily on honest, objective imperatives, truthfully debated, and based only on what’s good for the country and its people, it would have a better chance of overcoming the many threats and challenges facing us. But for this to happen, integrity and truthfulness must become the dominant qualities among all sectors of Israeli society, because it’s from this society that Israel’s politicians emerge, bringing with them, for better or for worse, all the general mores. For the moment Israeli society has a long way to go before integrity and truthfulness become the dominant qualities among all its sections.

Also compounding the gravity of Israel’s situation is its standing with the rest of the world. It’s interesting that Israel has been condemned – not just criticized – but actually condemned, in the various United Nations agencies and forums far more often than any other country in the world, and that includes some truly repressive, murderous regimes such as Sudan, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Iran, Somalia, etc., etc. And Israel heads the condemned list by far. Also, the media all over the world, including in Western democracies, is quick to pounce on Israel every time it tries to defend itself against military attacks. And there are many Jews in these countries as well as in Israel itself, who see Israel as largely to blame for the conflict with the Arabs. And of course, a major criticism is Israel’s occupation of Judea and Samaria and settlement construction.

What is largely ignored or downplayed by the leaders and people of the world and the media, is the multitude of infractions inflicted upon the Jews of Israel by the neighboring peoples. Over ninety years of unrelenting enmity and enormous efforts, to physically destroy Israel, using military invasions and terror, backed by commercial and academic boycott as well as the cynical manipulation of the United Nations.

Also ignored or downplayed are the incredibly disproportionate statistics. The Arabs outnumber the Jews of Israel by over 50 to one. They are backed by another billion Muslims. They have most of the world’s oil reserves. They have the second largest land-mass in the world, larger than the USA, Canada or Australia. On the other hand Israel, one of the smallest countries in the world, has needed to defend itself in half-a-dozen full-scale wars – all of them with the express purpose of either immediately or incrementally, destroying Israel. One would think that this enormous disparity would arouse some appreciation among the nations of the world and the general media regarding Israel’s desperate struggle to survive.

But no, it is Israel that is castigated, condemned, boycotted – not just by its sworn enemies, but by governments, trade unions, church organizations, municipalities, even highly educated, cultured folks at universities in North America, Europe and Britain, with seldom a word of disapproval towards those seeking the destruction of Israel.

Might all this be a case of double standards and bias? Well, when one also considers that seldom throughout history, or quite probably never, has a country been called upon by the nations of the world to return territories that it conquered in wars of defense, as is the case with Israel, it’s hard not to see bias. And in order to try and make peace with the Arab world, Israel has repeatedly ceded lands it conquered in these wars of defense … and yet with every concession that Israel has made, certainly in the last two decades, the enmity of Israel’s adversaries has kept growing, and peace has become less likely than ever before.

So it seems very clear that bias and double standards have blocked common sense and common decency on the part of many people all over the world. Ordinary people and their leaders and the opinion-makers in the media. But why is this? It’s a big subject, and it can’t fit in the scope of this talk. But briefly, let’s say that the bias and double standards are largely due to the concern for regular oil supplies, international politics and commerce, vested interests in certain journalistic circles and intellectual liberalism that might have tripped over itself, and oh, something to do with feelings about those pesky Jews. But no matter what the reasons, bias and double standards pop up when facts are not faced honestly; when falsehood is propagated and honored. That in a nutshell is the big picture regarding the Israel-Arab conflict, which incidentally got started and is perpetuated, to a large extent through falsehood. And yes, also through an inordinate degree of ignorance.

This series of blogs has been about a most basic value – truthfulness. Something that is clearly not fully understood, appreciated or practised … possibly anywhere. In briefly bringing up the Israel-Arab conflict, I have tried to show the connection between falsehood and conflict. How falsehood can start conflict and perpetuate it and prevent its resolution.

And the terrible thing is that it is this same general inability to face facts honestly by so many people, regarding the Israel-Arab conflict, that is also preventing humanity as a whole from coping adequately with all the other serious, pressing existential threats and challenges to our planet that we had mentioned earlier.

Crucial insights in the way

we all lie

By RALPH DOBRIN

Author of “How to Avoid Armageddon”

Order it through Amazon

We all hate it when people lie to us or aren’t absolutely honest. Isn’t that so? One reason for our resentment towards any kind of falsehood – in others – is that it indicates that we cannot trust or depend on this other person. In family and friends it hurts even more, because we sense that the trust we automatically felt because of our kinship or fraternal ties, has been betrayed and could even be the source of harm to us.

But I think that our aversion to falsehood is probably instinctive. It’s a universal sentiment, like the disgust caused by exposed feces. I’m sorry to draw this unpleasant comparison, but that’s how repugnant lying can be. I think that our disgust with exposed excrement stems, not only from the smell and the messiness, but also from our innate knowledge that uncovered, it can be a source of disease. The smell and appearance exude a warning – watch out this is dangerous for your health! And while lying might not reach our olfactory senses, and although most of us might not be sensitive to its perniciousness when we ourselves lie, we instinctively recognize that something stinks – figuratively – when we are lied to.

Now, to a large extent it is belief that determines our routines and attitudes. Regarding every-day issues, my beliefs are largely based on empirical experience. I’m not talking about religious belief now. I turn on a switch – like I’ve done countless times, and a light comes on, even though I might not know anything about electricity. And I reckon that I can get to my office by 9 o’clock in the morning if I get out of bed early enough so as to catch a bus at 8.20, because I have done this hundreds of times. I acknowledge, truthfully, that I need to be at the bus stop before 8:20, otherwise I might miss the bus and be late for work. My truthfulness to myself is based on an empirical premise. Now, if I lie to myself, suggesting that I can stay in bed a little longer in the morning and that it’s fine if I get to the bus stop a few minutes after 8:20, because of my untruthfulness to myself, I could end up losing my job.

This is a small, very mundane example of the importance of truthfulness on a personal level. Employed as an unbreakable principle for every aspect of our lives, as well as for society as a whole, the practice of truthfulness can give us far more control in our lives, bring us less frustration and stress, and fewer personal problems and invariably ensure more fulfillment. Indeed the practise of truthfulness on a large scale can redeem the world. I’ll talk briefly about this later.

Now, I like to believe that most people are pretty honest most of the time. Don’t you think so? That’s wishful thinking on my part? Maybe! Look, I’ll agree that most people might exaggerate a little from time to time. Yeah, we know that. But under normal circumstances most people will seldom knowingly tell an outright lie. Under normal circumstances. But there are times when the large majority of ordinary folks … might twist the truth a little! For instance, as drivers, if caught not heeding a stop sign, many folks will swear to the policeman that they did indeed stop at the stop sign. Or when criticized or scolded for something, many people often lie about what they did or didn’t do or what they heard or didn’t hear or what they thought they understood.

How often have we ourselves given some kind of cockamamie excuse for coming late to an appointment or for not keeping a promise? I’m not talking about telling a little white lie so as to spare the feelings of someone. No, I’m talking about not being truthful, in order to impress someone, or to get out of an embarrassing or costly situation – and not even realizing that we were lying.

The thing is that if we … occasionally twist the truth a bit, and even though usually, very little harm might be done directly, fibbing can become a habitual thing. And if we fib about small things we’ll most likely have little problem lying about more serious things. And in any human framework, no matter how large or small, whether it’s a family or a factory or a large company, when the level of truthfulness is kind of shaky, and if there’s more than just a little deceit and lying, then trust and harmony will be undermined, and the prospects of success in whatever is being done, will be diminished.

I reckon that many of you know all this from personal experience. As for myself, I am standing here this evening presuming to know what I’m talking about because of my own personal experience, which includes being both a purveyor of untruthfulness, a lightweight purveyor if you please, and a recipient or target. I admit that in the past I have indulged in a lot of exaggeration; I have fibbed and lied – for many reasons; I have tried to impress people, especially womenfolk, with fib and fantasy – on a scale that makes me embarrassed when I think of it. But today, I think I’m more honest and truthful than I used to be because I realize more fully than ever before the paramount importance of truthfulness. And yet, sometimes, even now I still catch myself about to regurgitate one of my old fibs or even tell a lie. But I usually catch myself in time. At least I hope so. It’s an ongoing challenge to be a fully truthful person.

However, there are great dividends to truthfulness. In itself, being an honest person can have its rewards in the form of self-esteem. Why not? As long as we don’t become self-righteous prigs. And we’ll earn the respect of our friends, neighbors, work associates and family. Also, a spirit of truthfulness in whatever we do, is likely to have positive results. We might not make a lot of money all at once, but in the long run whatever we do will have a better chance of turning out fine.

And there’s a good reason for this. Firstly, we won’t be so prone to kidding ourselves about the prospects of whatever it is that we want to do, or our own ability, or what is needed; we won’t be kidding ourselves about the budget needed, or the risks involved, and a whole lot of other details and issues. For instance, we might have our hearts set on buying a new car or a house with a garden, or opening a business or expanding our business. And it’s wonderful to have aims, ambitions and dreams, and to try and make them come true. But if we’re not completely honest with ourselves about all the details and issues, then instead of a dream coming true, we might find ourselves in a nightmare.

To make the best possible decisions, whenever there is some kind of dilemma, or an ambitious project, what we can do is take all the facts and factors, see them as objectively and honestly as possible. Then, if we have a problem deciding what to do, we can use the old system of making two columns – pro and con. Then give each item a rating according to the scale of likelihood – ranging from definite, probable, possible, unlikely to absolutely no chance. Add to this equation personal feelings about the issue. What does our heart say? Try to assess how much weight this aspect carries in our ultimate decision. Then, even after coming to a final conclusion, it might be helpful to mull over the question for a little while longer – if the issue is not too urgent. Then we will probably have made the best possible decision. And it will have been personal honestly and truthfulness that enabled us to do so.   

Truthfulness, integrity, honesty – these are serious principles. But please bear in mind that abiding faithfully to these principles, doesn’t mean that we have to constantly be absolutely objective about everything; it doesn’t mean that we have to be unmitigatedly cautious all the time, or unimaginative, humorless, inflexible and puritanical. We can still be our true selves. We can still joke if that’s what we like doing, or smile and laugh if we feel that way. We can even tell tall tales – as long people can understand that our stories are not meant to be taken literally, but just for the purpose of amusing others.

By the way, truthfulness won’t solve all our problems, especially if there are serious, incurable illnesses involved, or if we have unsolvable problems with crazy neighbors, or very rebellious children, or a nasty spouse, or overwhelming financial woes. Although truthfulness might help us reconcile ourselves to a difficult situation, or keep us from making things worse, and yes, maybe even find the best way out of our problems. And we might even be able to convey to any adversary of ours, the fact that being straight with each other might help us resolve our differences.

There is an important additional aspect involved in the practise of truthfulness. It has to do with the way we speak. In any discussion or argument, if we shout, we might be heard, but we won’t be heeded. It’s usually best to talk quietly, calmly and politely. If you need to raise your voice to be heard, then raise your voice until you are being listened to, and then revert to a less confrontational tone. By continuing in this way, it is likely that we will be responded to in a similar tone. A modulated decibel level is invariably more conducive to honest discourse. I bet that for many folks this would be a new approach, uh?

To be continued

Barry Rubin is a foremost expert on the Middle East and terrorism. He is a professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Israel and the director of its Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA). A prodigious writer, his incisive articles on Israel and the Arab world have appeared frequently in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Jerusalem Post, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The New Republic and many other authoritative publications.

He is also the author of a number of books, including Political Islam (Routledge), The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-MacMillan), The Future of the Middle East (Sharpe, in press). Edited works include Iraq After Saddam (Sharpe, in press), “Global Survey of Islamism” (Sharpe, in press), and an eight-volume introductory book series to the Middle East (Sharpe, in press).

Here we present a modified version of an article published in The Jerusalem Post on the day before Gilad Schalit’s release after 5 years of captivity in Gaza, titled: “The Simple Truth: They Want It All.”

The Simplest Thing in the World to Understand:

Why There Isn’t Israel-Palestinian Peace

By Barry Rubin

Media, ”experts” and governments find it very hard to understand an amazing phenomenon. No matter what the Palestinian Authority (PA) is offered – even if it includes money, concessions, and steps toward statehood – the PA says “no!”

I wouldn’t even bother to write this since the answer seems so simple, but a lot of people who are paid to deal with this stuff don’t get it. So let me elucidate:

The PA wants everything, an independent state on all the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem with no restrictions, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, no serious security guarantees, no limits on militarization, no agreement that this means an end of the conflict, no insistence that Palestinian refugees be resettled in the state of Palestine, and nothing to prevent them from pursuing a second stage of wiping Israel off the map entirely.

Now, one could say that it is common for people to want everything and to give nothing in exchange but certain factors – missing in this case – push toward compromise. These factors include:

♦ Knowing that they cannot get a better deal. The Palestinians know that the West will always offer more if they are intransigent.

♦ The impasse favors your adversary because your intransigence will gain it international support. In this case, the more intransigent the Palestinians, the more Israel is blamed.

♦ Economic pressure to change the situation. Since the PA is almost completely supported by foreign aid that is not threatened by its hardline this pressure does not exist.

♦ Public opinion pressure to change the situation. In this case, Palestinian public opinion is relatively radicalized and ideological and does not demand a compromise settlement.

♦ Concern that your political rivals will “out-moderate” you and win by offering to make a deal. In this case, the opposite is true: rivals “out-radicalize” and threaten to destroy you politically and perhaps even physically if you make a deal.

♦ Belief that time is not on your side. Due to religious and nationalist ideology, along with misperception of Israel, the PA (and even more Hamas) believes that time is on its side; that waiting a couple of generations and many decades doesn’t matter.

That’s not a complete list. But the point is that the world in general, the United States and Europe, the UN and Arabic-speaking states and Muslim-majority states have created a “perfect” system in that it is pretty unbreakable. Here’s a brief description:

♦ The PA has no incentive to make peace and won’t do so.

♦ The world insists that “peace” is an urgent top priority.

♦ The only variable is Israel, which must be made to give way. But Israel won’t do so because of past experience and the fact that the risks are now too high.

Deadlock!

Nothing will change. There will be no peace process; no Palestinian state. No “progress.” You can read this article in two or three years and it will still be completely up to date. If you don’t understand the points made above it is impossible to comprehend the Middle East. There will be thousands of e-mails, hundreds of articles, scores of expensive conferences, dozens of foundation grants, and tens of peace initiatives that are all meaningless because they are based on false premises.

This is neither a left-wing or right-wing perspective, but merely an explanation as to why all the schemes and theories of those who do not see these facts never actually take wing. It is not politically correct but factually correct.

Now, you might ask, do I just criticize or do I have constructive policy advice? I do. Here it is:

When the Palestinian Authority rejects the Quartet proposal for negotiations, the United States, European Union, and anyone else who wants to go along tells them, “We’ve tried to help you and you don’t want to listen so since we have lots of other things to do we will go do them. Good luck and if you ever change your mind and get serious about making peace you have our phone number.”

The previous paragraph would send shock and rejection throughout policy circles, right? But why? If you cannot solve a problem and – let’s be clear here – the problem doesn’t need to be solved immediately, then you work on other problems. And there is no shortage of those!

We are left, however, with the following problem: Those in positions of political, media, and intellectual power don’t get it.

Solution: Please explain it to them or take their place.

Barry Rubin’s blogsite:  http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/

Politics and global survival

Based on talks by Ralph Dobrin

Author of “How to avoid Armageddon”

Available through Amazon

Click: www.amazon.com  type: how to avoid armageddon

More than with most other topics, politics and ideology tend to bring about cognitively dissonant attitudes such as denial, automatic rejection of anything that doesn’t fit current perceptions and stubbornly clinging to old ways and ideas, no matter what new information emerges. So, whenever any issue with a political bearing is discussed, often even normally level-headed, intelligent, honest people can have their ability to think objectively and comprehensively, noticeably diminished. Right wing, left wing, liberal, conservative, centrist, it doesn’t matter. Intellectual honesty and rational thinking are often seriously compromised. Not always, not with everyone, but all too often. It’s amazing to see even wonderfully intelligent people, time and again over their entire adulthood, stick to the same old positions regarding ideology, politics and their various philosophical viewpoints, no matter how the world around them changes.

A classic example of cognitive dissonance – albeit with only a marginal bearing on politics – can be found in the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian doctor in mid-nineteenth century, who tried to convince fellow-physicians and nurses to wash their hands with disinfectant and sterilize their instruments before treating women giving birth in the maternity ward where he worked. Not a big deal, one might think. Plain common sense and standard practise for all medical treatments. Well, not then. At that time between 10 to 30 percent of women giving birth in hospitals died from childbirth fever, clearly due to the lack of hygienic conditions that prevailed.

Even though Semmelweis empirically and repeatedly showed how sterile working conditions could dramatically lower the mortality rates of mothers giving birth in hospitals to less than one percent, he was ridiculed and rejected by most of his fellow doctors in Vienna and elsewhere, because his observations conflicted with the established medical opinions of the time. It needed another 20 years before the medical establishment accepted Semmelweis’ simple solution to save lives. Meanwhile tens of thousands of women died agonizingly and unneccesarily because of the automatic rejection of any idea that didn’t fit people’s perceptions, no matter what new information so readily emerged.  

By the way, I’m not saying that every old idea or way is necessarily faulty and must be changed. But whenever we automatically close ourselves off to anything new or different, or to anything that doesn’t tally exactly with our perception of things, we should check to see whether we are really facing all facts and factors with complete honesty. Because the consequences of not doing so, can be pretty grim to say the least.

Semmelweis reached his conclusions through empirical deduction. Let’s take a more political example, utilizing empirical deduction, while showing other forms of cognitive dissonance. Many people in this Israel and all over the world say that Israel should agree to all of the Palestinian demands and then there will have peace with them – demands that include Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 Armistice Lines. But if we want to be absolutely honest about the situation, irrespective of our political leanings, surely we should also consider what happened every time that Israel withdrew its forces from areas in the West Bank and Gaza. Time and again, especially following the 1993 Peace Accords, withdrawal would soon lead to an escalation of armed attacks against Israeli civilians. In Gaza, even after removing every single Jewish vestige from Gaza in 2005, the response was an immediate and prolonged escalation of rocket attacks that lasted for years and was checked, only after a serious military incursion by Israel. There wasn’t any sign that Israel’s withdrawal had helped bring peace any nearer. On the contrary, Israel’s withdrawal pushed peace further away. So, empirically, it would appear rather unlikely that agreeing to ever-more Arab demands will, at the present time at least, bring about real peace.

On the other hand, there are people who call for an end to any negotiations with the Palestinians because they are not to be trusted, that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria justly was won in wars of defense – of physical survival actually, and that Israel cannot afford to cede territory of vital strategic significance, especially in a time of turmoil in the entire Arab world.

But have these folks honestly considered the following crucial questions? How long can Israel rule over a people that doesn’t want its rule, that in fact hates this rule? And if Israel annexes the entire West Bank, how long will it be before the Arabs in Israel combined with those in the West Bank would form a political bloc that could sway or even dominate fateful national decisions? Mind you, Israel could simply defranchise them, which would mean that Israel could no longer call itself a democracy and would be taking on an electoral feature of the apartheid state, which would deepen even more its international isolation; which would mean more boycotts and a lot less commerce, as well as a further erosion of political support in the United Nations, even the possible loss of America’s support.

By the way, the many countries that choose to downplay the perils facing Israel, while blithely calling for its full withdrawal to the indefensible lines of 1967, are also ignoring fateful facts and factors that could have a bearing on Israel’s very survival. By ignoring these issues they are actually pandering to falsehood; the immorality of this is greatly compounded by pressuring Israel to do what might well lead to its very destruction.

Many people say that Judea and Samaria is Israel’s God-given land, that God is on Israel’s side (the Muslims also believe that God is on their side!) and that Israel will prevail even if the entire Muslim world faces us on the battlefield, even if the United Nations joins in. After all, Prophecy talks about such an eventuality. How wonderful to believe! But then, empirically, we might remember previous times when God was expected to intervene – like when the Jews rebelled against the Roman Empire, believing that their leader Bar Kochba might even be the messiah, only to face destruction and their long exile; or the question of where was God during the Holocaust? On the other hand, one can point to the incredible victories of 1948 and 1967. Although they might have been due to smarter planning, better training and a lot of luck. Or maybe they were truly miraculous … the hand of the Almighty. No matter what I want to believe, I cannot honestly know.

But I will say this about the totally unfathomable factor that we call God: I believe – and again, that’s not really knowing, but I believe that to receive divine backing, Israel needs to be worthy, truly worthy. And surely that demands more than the observance of the Sabbath and the kosher laws. Surely worthiness demands a strong inclination towards honesty, integrity and truthfulness by Israeli society. In fact, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the only way Israel can prevail against the demonic odds being stacked against it, is through developing a society, in which the dominant characteristics are honesty, integrity and truthfulness. Only this way will Israel be able to build up a nation with the trustworthiness and competence nation necessary to survive.

Whether we look at the situation from a religious or a secular point of view – it seems that Israel and indeed the whole of humanity is now facing an enormous test, a test that will very likely determine humanity’s fate. We have already listed the perils that confront us all, perils the like of which, humanity has never faced. And the test is … the universal practise of truthfulness. Failing this test is simply not an option. Certainly not for Israel. It’s primarily a practical, pragmatic imperative.

How are we to succeed in this test? What must we do to promote the tenets of truthfulness among Israeli society … and throughout the world? The answer: on an individual basis, not a great deal. No need to make any heroic effort or drastic changes in our present lifestyles. We can start by doing a little soul-searching about our own level of truthfulness. I must ask myself. How truthful a person am I. Do I sometimes exaggerate things and to what extent? Do I sometimes fib and why? Do I twist the truth, cheat – even from time to time, deceive anyone? Do I lie? And please we shouldn’t be too upset by what we reveal about ourselves. I bet that everyone, or just about everyone, from time to time does indulge in some from of falsehood. The thing is to understand this, to recognize our own shortcomings and endeavor to the best of our ability to become as truthful as we possibly can. It entails a daily review.

At the same time we should also question the validity of our notions – especially notions with a political and ideological connection. And together with all this we should confront any form of falsehood that we encounter, no matter where … in shops, with people who provide service, clerks in municipal and government offices, etc. But we should be very cautious before pointing out any twisting of truth, so as to scrupulously avoid accusing anyone of lying if they haven’t lied. But when we do encounter cases of undeniable falsehood, we should make it clear that it has been exposed and that it harms us all. But do this quietly and without overt hostility. The aim is to enlist people into the cause.

By the way, we should realize that by leading our lives in a normatively honest manner we are already advancing the pursuit of national and global truthfulness. We must understand that this will be a long-term endeavor, which we must win.

Also, what has to be done is to form a group of people that will start the ball rolling. There are practical ways that we shall spread the message – through the usual methods that ideas are promoted. For more information please e-mail me: friendlysting@yahoo.com

To order “How to avoid Armageddon” click:  www.amazon.com   type:how to avoid Armageddon

How to handle lies?

(Based on talks on the subject of global survival)

 By RALPH DOBRIN

Author of “How to avoid Armageddon”

Available through Amazon, Click:  www.amazon.com   type: how to avoid armageddon

A problem that we all face is how do we know when what is being said or claimed is really the truth? How can we be sure that something we read or hear is factually correct? That it’s not a mistaken assumption or an outright lie? This is an immensely important question. And there is no foolproof answer. While I don’t think that we should always automatically be cynical or skeptical about everything, we should be sensitive when half-baked claims are made; we should be able to detect disinformation and other forms of falsehood no matter who or what is the source. That means recognizing demagoguery and glib propaganda, especially when it’s used to promote political or ideological interests. We should pay attention, not only to the appearance and style of the speakers, but to their actual words – what is really being said, what is omitted, what is inconsistent with previous statements, what doesn’t really make sense, what appeals to our sense of wishful thinking? Above all, we must be critically honest with ourselves. And if we do identify any form of falsehood – if it is obvious that someone is lying to us, we must expose it. Granted, this is a very complex expectation. But it is very important.

Often, the best we can do is simply assume the validity or falsehood of what is claimed. We might be able to assess the likelihood according to a scale of credibility, ranging from probable – I can’t be absolutely sure, but it’s probable that such and such is the case … or … there’s a possibility that it’s so … or there’s a slight possibility, or no way!

This scale of credibility can help us think more clearly. It can help us make sensible decisions and value judgments on just about every aspect of our lives – family and work matters, as well as issues of a wider social, national and even global significance.

Let’s take global warming, for example. Many scientists warn that it’s the extensive use of fossil fuels and other pollutants that is causing global warming and climate change, and that could well lead to widespread disaster, unless drastic changes are made … now! But there are other scientists, albeit a minority, who argue that the whole issue of global warming is really a hoax and that fossil fuels have little or no bearing whatsoever on climate change.

So what am I to believe? This is a very serious issue. But I don’t know much about chemistry, meteorology and other related environmental sciences, so how can I reach a fair conclusion? Well firstly, I can get a layman’s grasp by reading material on the subject, including opposing viewpoints, while trying to keep an open mind. But in the end I can only rely on my common sense and intellectual integrity, which might enable me to come to a conclusion one way or another, or at least an assumption on which I can base my stand on the issue. An assumption based on the scale of credibility.

Whatever conclusion I reach, should have little to do with whether it matches the stand of whatever political or ideological movement I follow. If it matches, then well and good. If not, I need to consider the issue on its own merits. And there’s another parameter that I can use to assess the credibility of something. Simply ask the question: Does it make sense? Does it make sense that pouring millions of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere won’t have any effect on the climate? Does it make sense that pouring millions of tons of waste matter into our rivers, lakes and oceans won’t cause dreadful damage to the ecological balance? The questions often become rhetorical and therein can be found our answers.

An important aspect of thinking clearly is how we relate to disagreement. When someone disagrees with us, do we see it as a challenge to be met and won at all costs, or as a personal slight that must be firmly righted? This is how most people react to disagreement, whether it’s on a trivial subject or something of definite personal, ideological or professional importance.

But this kind of response to disagreement is seldom productive and can be disruptive to say the least. Now I’m going to say something that might sound strange to many of you. I’m going to say that we should welcome disagreement and see it, not necessarily as an argument to be won … at all costs, but rather as an opportunity to clarify something. Perhaps the other person really knows what he or she is talking about and is able to put us right about something. If that is the case we might have gained something through this other person’s disagreeing with what we had said, and we should always be ready to admit that we had been wrong and even respond with something like: “Thank you for putting me right.” Especially if it is something that might help us in our lives. Losing an argument shouldn’t be seen as losing face – but rather as an opportunity to learn something.

I’m not saying that we should always readily agree with what other people say. Of course not. If, for example in the course of a discussion or an argument, the other person seems to have a point, but we are not fully convinced, we can still continue reasoning with each other. We can see it as a joint search for correct answers. We might even find that additional argument and counter-argument will help substantiate our point of view; that yes, we might even see that we had it right all the time; that what we had thought, was indeed the case. And if the other guy can’t get it he’ll be losing out, whether he realizes it or not.

The tendency to argue, that is so common, is often a case of choosing to ignore readily observable facts or even discard the rules of plain logic. This tendency to try to always win an argument, to never admit that the other person might have a point, is actually pursuing denial and twisting facts. And no matter how honest we might generally be, when that’s what we do in the course of an argument, we are in fact pandering to untruthfulness.  To be continued.

To order “How to avoid Armageddon” click: www.amazon.com  type: how to avoid Armageddon