In reading Haaretz today, I came across a fascinating article from Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel.
But first a little background.... I am a big fan of simulations in political modeling. Not that they are always accurate, but, they do provide a fascinating look in at the decision making process that goes into a situation. For instance, when I was at Hebrew University we did a simulation (this is in 1982-83) regarding the Israel and it's neighbors. For a class, we all took the roles of Israel, the U.S., the U.S.S.R, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, the Saudis, the P.L.O. and the U.N. (I played the role of the Israeli Defense Minister). We were then given events as they were happening in the real world (like Syrian overflights of the Golan, or Israeli movements and exercises in the Negev) and so forth and were trying to create a peace agreement. Even though all the students were Jews or Christians our instructions were to immerse ourselves in the politics of the country we represented by reading their works and taking on their roles.
It was a fascinating exercise where we could not reach an agreement. But we learned some interesting things. One thing that I learned was the importance of Jordan as a factor in Middle East peace. However, this is irelevant to this diary. What is relevant is the experience of the simulation and what that can teach us.
Well, in Israel and in their latest column titled: Palestinians are preparing for September, but is Israel? Harel and Isaacheroff.
Here is what went down:
Also on Sunday, however, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, headed by Dr. Khalil Shikaki, conducted a simulation exercise relating to the September vote. The participants, past and present senior figures from the PA and Fatah, assumed the roles of representatives of the PA and the U.S. administration, and other key international figures. Three Israelis were also invited (including one of this column's co-authors ), who, alongside a Palestinian academic, played the Israeli government. Senior Hamas figures in the West Bank were invited to participate but refused because of the Israeli presence. The proceedings were held in Arabic.
Their conclusions... very interesting with some surprises.
The First scenario has a diplomatic twist to it. In this, the U.S. and E.U. make different bids to try to counter the Palestinians going to the U.N. - the U.S. offers recognizing a Palestinian State but not setting borders or a capital. The E.U. suggests postponing the vote for a year and offers working a deal along the armistice lines of 1949 for a year and if no deal is reached then offers to recognize a Palestinian State based on 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the Capital.
In the simulation, Israel rejects the E.U. proposal but accepts the American one while the P.A. rejects both deals.
I find this interesting that the P.A. would reject both of the deals. Seeing as how the people involved were ex-Fateh and P.A. officials this gives it some legitamacy to me. the one question in all this simulation is: What about the Palestinian RoR? That is the "elephant" in the room. It seems that this has to be discussed as well.
The Second scenario, on the day of the vote there is a violent demonstration in the West Bank and the IDF kills seven protestors. At the same time, there are other semi-violent demonstrations with young Palestinians (un armed but with rocks) protesting as well. ALSO, PIJ and radicals in Gaza start firing Grad rockets into Southern Israel hitting Be'er Sheva.
At first people in the simulation thought this was unrealistic, however, the diary has this to say, which I found interesting:
The second scenario seemed a bit far-fetched at first. However, a poll Shikaki released 10 days ago casts things in a different light: It showed that 65 percent of respondents support the UN initiative. Moreover, 52 percent say they will take part in "peaceful" demonstrations and processions to Israeli checkpoints after the vote; 76 percent want the PA to be active in Area C (which is under full Israeli control ) after the state is recognized - for example, by building airports, roads and housing, and deploying security forces - even if this means a confrontation with Israel. Fully 75 percent support the deployment of Palestinian security forces at the Allenby Bridge across the Jordan River, even if this means the West Bank's only access to the outside world will be closed for a few months. In other words, it is hard to say who will set the tone: the public or the leadership.
The public is clearly in the mood for some kind of action according to this poll. So I wonder what will result.
The Third scenario, posits the beginning of an intifada where hundreds are killed and wounded in demonstrations across the West Bank while Gaza militants fire rockets into S'derot and Ashkelon. In this scenario (which ended I think due to time) the IDF was preparing to confront PA security forces who were deploying to hold the territory they declared was theirs.
In this scenario to confront the problems, the Israeli government changes character a bit and Prime Minister Netanyahu proposes a National Unity Government with Kadima. Harel and Isaacheroff write here:
In this simulation the Israeli side proposes a cease-fire followed by direct negotiations on the basis of the 1967 boundaries, in return for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state. The PA rejects this outright as unacceptable.
The Palestinian team's curiosity was piqued when the "Israeli" side established a national unity government with opposition leader Tzipi Livni. Seeming somewhat enthusiastic, the Palestinians noted that this might change the picture, since Livni is trusted by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his aides. However, the enthusiasm faded when it became clear that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman would remain in the government (Lieberman was played outstandingly by a Palestinian ).
Interesting that the P.A. and Palestinians would have this reaction to Livni though not surprising. HOWEVER, a mistake I see here is that Lieberman and Y.B. would remain in the coalition as neither Kadima nor Yisrael Betainu want to work together. Y.B. was in the Kadima government for a short while until Kadima could no longer put up with their radical behavior and tossed them from the coalition (depending on the story one hears). I can see a National Unity Gov't with Likud, Kadima, Atz'maout, Avodah and Ariyah Deri's new party (or Shas - if he takes that back). But I don't see YB or the current Shas now in that.
One other scenario that I can forsee is that this:
A Fourth Scenario, In response to mounting violence the Government offers a cease fire which is rejected by the Palestinians. In response the Yesha movement stages massive protests and and sympathetic IDF units defect to defend the settlers. At the same time the settlers move on local Palestinian communities and begin a mini-civil war within the territories.
In a response to the rising tide of violence the Israelis unilaterally set borders along the lines proposed by PM Netanyahu and start fencing off areas of the territories. At the same time the IAF flies sorties against Hamas/militant rocket attacks and troops begin to raid into Gaza.
I can see a number of other scenarios as well. One thing I think would be fascinating is to run that scenario here but given the bad will between I.P. posters this might not be possible (though possibly could lead to a realistic simulation). I for one would happily participate, I think we all could learn a lot from it.
Please join in with your thoughts as to what scenario's that you see possibly occuring and why. I would be fascinated as to what we all think will happen. And hey, if anyone likes my idea and is willing to put aside differences I stand ready to join in that exercise.
Shalom.