Jay Canarick

Math 49s

Essay #1 Version 3

11/12/11

Eight years ago I inflicted upon myself one of the most influential experiences of my life. I was in 5th grade, when I discussed with my friend his upcoming trip to Israel, a conversation that would soon change my outlook on Israel and the rest of the Middle East region. At the time, Israel was at war (now referred to as the Second Intifada), and to my knowledge (or lack thereof), Israel was not a safe place to be. After talking to my friend, I concluded that he was probably going to die on his vacation to Israel, and proceeded to tell my parents exactly that. They disagreed entirely with my senseless conclusion, and when my friend returned a week later, I realized that I had erred horribly. In fact, because of my egregious lack of awareness, my parents planned a trip to Israel for the following winter break to prove to me just how wrong I was.

Being a Jew, and having family in Israel, there was no need to actually make a connection to Israel, because it was already there. But what I did need to do was pursue that connection in order to take full advantage of my heritage. After returning from Israel, I realized how flooded my mind was with misconceptions about Israel and about all that was going on in the Middle East. It was then that I began my plan of overcoming my ignorance and maintaining a significant level of awareness of the current situation in Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Being surrounded by Jewish students and teachers, this plan was not entirely difficult, as Israel was always a topic of discussion in a number of my classes.

Through school, frequent trips to Israel, and a number of other connections, I was able to further my interests, as well as my understanding of the conflict and the region as a whole. Whenever the opportunity arose to study Israel, I did, leading me to a seminar on Israel during my senior year of high school, and a leadership position related to Israel both here and at home.

This year, especially, was an extremely significant year related to the Middle East, due largely to what is now referred to as the Arab Spring. While most of the action did not occur in Israel or with the Palestinians, which is where I am mainly interested in, the revolutions and constant protests in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain, to name a few, have had serious ramifications on the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis. Anytime there is conflict between any of the Muslim nations, it is bound to affect Israel as it could likely change the balance of power among the Arabs. Due to all that has been going on, this year has been a revolutionary one in terms of the current balance in the Middle East, and has, thus, made keeping up to date with the Arab-Israeli conflict quite interesting, as changes occurred almost daily.

It is because of my past interest in the Israel, as well as the current revolutionary state in the Middle East that I chose to surveydifferent groups of people about the Arab-Israeli Conflict. For my inquiry into the Arab-Israeli conflict, I wanted to see what possible solutions there might be, if any at all. For the basis of my analysis I wanted to get a general view of what both sides of the conflict think, and then get a consensus from a decently non-biased group to see what public opinion looks like. In order to achieve this, I had three survey groups: a fully Jewish group, and very liberal, pro-Palestinian group, and a group of random students here at Duke University. To each of these groups, I sent the exact same preferential ballot survey, which asked them the following question and choices:

Which of the following do you think is the best solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict?

1. I have no preferences among the choices listed below this statement

2. Keeping the borders of Israel as they are currently

3. A one state solution with Israel in full control of the state

4. A one state solution in which the Palestinians have full control of the state

5. A one state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians form a single government to rule together over the land

6. Returning to the pre-1967 borders

7. A two state solution with Israel in control of Jerusalem

8. A two state solution with Palestinians in control of Jerusalem

9. A two state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians share Jerusalem peacefully

10. A two state solution that would make Jerusalem international land, giving everybody equal access to it

11. A three state solution

Not surprisingly, the results for the Jewish response were quite pro-Israeli, with the ranked pairs ordering as follows:

  1. A two state solution with Israel in control of Jerusalem
  2. Keeping the borders of Israel as they are currently
  3. A one state solution with Israel in full control of the state
  4. A two state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians share Jerusalem peacefully
  5. A two state solution that would make Jerusalem international land, giving everybody equal access to it
  6. Returning to the pre-1967 borders
  7. A one state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians form a single government to rule together over the land
  8. A three state solution
  9. A two state solution with Palestinians in control of Jerusalem
  10. A one state solution in which the Palestinians have full control of the state

In addition to winning by the ranked pairs ordering, the choice “A two state solution with Israel in control of Jerusalem” won by every other method (Plurality, Top Two Runoff, Instant Runoff, Borda Count, Instant Runoff Borda Count, Least Worst Defeat, and Schulze).

The ranked pairs ordering for the pro-Palestinian group was as follows:

  1. A two state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians share Jerusalem peacefully
  2. Returning to the pre-1967 borders
  3. A one state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians form a single government to rule together over the land
  4. A two state solution that would make Jerusalem international land, giving everybody equal access to it
  5. A two state solution with Palestinians in control of Jerusalem
  6. A two state solution with Israel in control of Jerusalem
  7. A three state solution
  8. A one state solution in which the Palestinians have full control of the state
  9. A one state solution with Israel in full control of the state
  10. Keeping the borders of Israel as they are currently

The results of this survey with regard to the other voting methods, however, was not as definitive. The third choice in the ranked pairs order, “A one state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians form a single government to rule together over the land,” was the plurality winner, while the winner of the ranked pairs election, “A two state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians share Jerusalem peacefully,” won by all other methods (Top Two Runoff, Instant Runoff, Borda Count, Instant Runoff Borda Count, Least Worst Defeat, and Schulze). However, since one choice won by every method but one, we can assume that this is a more representational answer of the opinion that the pro-Palestinian group espouses.

Lastly, the Duke University student survey group had the ranked pairs ordering that follows:

  1. A two state solution that would make Jerusalem international land, giving everybody equal access to it
  2. A two state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians share Jerusalem peacefully
  3. A two state solution with Israel in control of Jerusalem
  4. Keeping the borders of Israel as they are currently
  5. Returning to the pre-1967 borders
  6. A three state solution
  7. A one state solution with Israel in full control of the state
  8. A one state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians form a single government to rule together over the land
  9. A two state solution with Palestinians in control of Jerusalem
  10. A one state solution in which the Palestinians have full control of the state

As expected, we found that the ranked pairs winner was “A two state solution that would make Jerusalem international land, giving everybody equal access to it,” which is a very moderate belief. Additionally, this choice won by every method (Plurality, Top Two Runoff, Instant Runoff, Borda Count, Instant Runoff Borda Count, Least Worst Defeat, and Schulze).

While these results were far from shocking, they gave very interesting insight. Obviously each side wants what is best for their country,and it would be hard to deny that this is the case.However, it was evident that after this desire, came a willingness to negotiate with the other side and have some sort of peaceful unification. Moreover, neither side was particularly interested in entirely eliminatingthe other side from the picture. They both understand that peace will not be attainable without compromise, which hints that sharing is not a possibility, but a certainty. Both sides had solutions that involved cooperation somewhat high on their ranked pairs ordering. In fact, the Palestinians first choice called for an equal sharing of both Israel and Jerusalem. While the Jewish response group’s first choices are very pro-Israeli (“A two state solution with Israel in control of Jerusalem” and “Keeping the borders of Israel as they are currently”), these choices were followed closely by solutions involving equal sharing between Israel and Palestine (“A two state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians share Jerusalem peacefully” and “A two state solution that would make Jerusalem international land, giving everybody equal access to it”).

The results do not provide for a unanimous decision in which all sides would be satisfied, but the current state of being in Israel also satisfies neither the Israelis, nor the Palestinians. We can, however, based on these results, begin making propositions as to how we could achieve a satisfactory solution that would create both democracy and peace in the region. If we look at the ranked pairs results as a whole, we see that the first choice that overlaps in all three surveys is “A two state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians share Jerusalem peacefully,” which, interestingly, is also the choice I would have chosen if I had to answer the survey.

This is not necessarily the most fair or the best solution, but it is the most applicable and the most attainable. The two main questions that arise when discussing the conflict are how much land will the Palestinians receive, and what do we do with Jerusalem. This solution answers both questions, and while the Jewish faction may argue that they would have to give up too much land for this solution, I would bet that the Jewish population would be willing to concede more than they necessarily want to for the opportunity to live in peace and not constantly be in a state of war and turmoil.

Clearly this is not the best solution as neither side will be entirely satisfied is, but this is where the idea of Game Theory ties in perfectly. In a very basic and not complex model of the Arab-Israeli conflict (which certainly does not exist), each side has two options: to fight, or to concede their desire and negotiate with the enemy. If they both fight, as they are currently doing, nothing will change, and peace will not be attained. If one side fights and the other offers to negotiate, the fighting side will probably win out the whole region, but if they both concede, nobody dies and peace is plausible. This all essentially boils down to the most basic form of Game Theory, the prisoner’s dilemma. We can analyze the situation all we want, but the best option is always for both sides to cooperate. Unfortunately it is not up to this logical approach to decide whether to fight or settle, but rather it is up to the government.

Here lies perhaps the most essential problem with trying to find a solution, which fits right into the theme of democracy that is inherent in our class. The ideal situation I have created could work perfectly, on the stipulationthat there needs to be a true democracy in the Middle East. The issue, however, at least on the Arab side, is that the government is much more radical than the average population of Palestinians. Israel has showed a willingness to concede in a number of occasions in the past, such as their acceptance of the UN Partition Plan of 1947, as well as their participation in the Oslo Accords, Camp David Accords, and the direct talks of 2010, all of which made efforts to make peace with the Palestinians. There certainly is a large faction of the Jewish population that objects to giving up their land, but the average citizen is somewhat willing to concede. As we saw in my survey, there is, also, a large group of the Palestinian population that would be more than happy to share land with Israel. However, if we were to survey the Palestinian government and leaders,we would see where one of the inherent problems lies. The citizens want peace, but the government is extremely radical and is not representing the views of their people, but rather their own views, which is a desire for complete control of Israel. Certainly the blame should not be put entirely on the Palestinian side, as there have been a number of Israeli Prime Ministers that are not willing to cooperate with the Palestinians. However, in the current state, the Jewish nation, as well as the Palestinian people, is willing to make peace, but it is the radical Palestinian government that is inhibiting the peace process.

In this case, game theory and democracy, in principle, agree. Together they would create the ideal situation in the Middle East, with both peace and contentment. But it is lack of democracy, however, in the government, and in the region as a whole, that is causing war to prevail over the possibility of peace. I, as with most people involved in Middle Eastern politics, want this to change, and even from the few surveys I conducted, there is hope for peace. Since we now have a general consensus in terms of a plausible solution to the conflict, it is reasonable to say that we know where we want to get.However, the method with which we approach the goal, peace, is crucial and will determine whether peace is ever attained. This method should depend on not only the solution, but also the main causes of the problem. For this reason, I surveyed all three response groups at once, asking the question “Which of the following do you think are the main causes of the Arab Israeli Conflict?” with the following choices:

  1. A: I have no preferences among the choices listed below this statement
  2. B: Religious differences
  3. C: Cultural differences
  4. D: Lack of awareness of the opposing point of view
  5. E: The ingrained belief that the other side is the enemy
  6. F: Clashing claims to the same land
  7. G: The history of conflicts and war causing only more of the same
  8. H: Mutual desire to own the entire land
  9. I: Desire for the other side to be removed from existence
  10. J: Inability of the two sides to communicate and compromise
  11. K: Lack of desire for peace
  12. L: Lack of a fair and sufficient peace proposal

In response to this question, I received the following ranked pairs ordering:

  1. E: The ingrained belief that the other side is the enemy
  2. F: Clashing claims to the same land
  3. G: The history of conflicts and war causing only more of the same
  4. B: Religious differences
  5. C: Cultural differences
  6. I: Desire for the other side to be removed from existence
  7. D: Lack of awareness of the opposing point of view
  8. J: Inability of the two sides to communicate and compromise
  9. H: Mutual desire to own the entire land
  10. K: Lack of desire for peace
  11. L: Lack of a fair and sufficient peace proposal

Choice E is the ranked pairs winner and is also a Condorcet winner. Additionally it won by every method of election (Plurality, Top Two Runoff, Instant Runoff, Borda Count, Instant Runoff Borda Count, Least Worst Defeat, and Schulze).

The most important part of these results, however, is that it provides a starting point. We understand that there is an ingrained belief that the other side is the enemy, and we also know that the average person involved would be accept a two state solution with Jerusalem split evenly as an acceptable solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, giving us both a start and an end point. All we need to do in order to attain peace and democracy in the region is to discern how to get from where we are, to where a majority of the citizens, apparently, would like to be. This is no easy task, but with the support of the people, it is foreseeable that government overcomes its opposition to peace, and that there will, in the near future, be a peaceful unification in Israel between Arabs and Israelis alike.