A problem with not being democratic

When one thinks of the Israel-Palestinian issue there is a long overlooked caveat that I thought is worth pointing out. It seems obvious that when Israelis vote for a man like Sharon who they pretty much believe is a war criminal, then it signifies a definite lack of interest in a peace process. Of course, any Israeli will tell you that a vote for Sharon by the country is really the country's way of saying that it is sick of Arab terror, and does not right now see the peace process as a viable option. As soon as it looks like the Arabs are willing to talk, the next Rabin or Barak-type leader will be in office.

This reasoning is elementary to any lay or sophisticated thinker about Israeli politics.

Unfortunately there is an apparent problem with this line of thought. It appears to say that the Israelis are the good guys, just waiting for the dust to clear and they will come out with open arms and greet their Palestinians in a open show of affection and friendship. But since Sharon is in power, it must mean that the fault lies with the Palestinians.

But what is the problem? I happen to agree with my original analysis of Israeli society. It is true. It is also pretty obvious.

Now if you are a Palestinian, you may not like this. Why not? because it says that the reverse is not the case. It says that when the Palestinian people want to make some sort of deal then Israel is not waiting for them. Rather Israel decided unilaterally when to make peace and when not to. How do they do this? They do this by voting in either a Sharon or a Barak. If Israelis are in a generous mood then they vote in a Barak to test the peace waters. If they are in the mood to continue brutalizing the Palestinians then they will vote in a Sharon to keep the Palestinians oppressed.

The reason that this line of thinking is wrong is because there is a hidden assumption that is made in the above argument. What is it? The assumption is that both sides are equally capable of making the decision to initiate peace talks and make the political adjustments accordingly. This however is not the case. (In game theoretic terms, we would say that both sides are capable of being punishing and forgiving, both necessary for any real cooperation.) The reason this is not the case is because there is a disparity in the respective political infrastructures of the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Israel has changed governments many times since her inception. Sometimes the government is a right-wing government, and sometimes it is a left-wing government. Israel can change. Moreover Israel is a fairly free and democratic society, amenable to all sorts of political adjustments and upheavals. Israel is also capable of changing her long-term goals and outlooks. The Palestinians on the other hand are not. Arafat has been in charge of the Palestinians issues since the late 1950's. He founded the PLO in 1964. When it was founded there was pretty much one goal in mind. The goal was to destroy Israel. He bet the lives and culture of the whole Palestinian people on the fact that that could happen. He was prepared to sacrifice Jordan and Lebanon to do it.

While Arafat may appear to have given up his initial goals, and while he hardly fights for them, it is hard to believe that he has actually changed them. I do not say this because I think that any Arab thinks that Israel will be wiped out in their lifetime. I say this because there is no evidence whatsoever that the Arabs, and the Palestinians in particular, are capable of a serious reevaluation of their goals, objectives, and methods.

The same person has been in charge since the beginning - namely Arafat. He has managed to stay in power, and barely alter his ideology, strategy, or overall goal. Moreover he continues to have the full backing of the Palestinians. He has the backing not because he is the most popular, but rather because he is playing a classic Arab political game. He is attacking Israel. Fighting with Israel is the key to Arab power. This should be obvious from the way Saadam reacted to the American invasion in 1991 - by attacking Israel, as well as the reaction of Lebanese citizens to their leaders, and on and on throughout much of the Arab world. If the Arabs are unable to alter strategy to adjust for changing Israeli views then there is going to be a problem - namely that even if Israel thought it should be conceding a bit, it will know that Arafat has no ability to negotiate in good faith. At this point it is really hard to give evidence of a Palestinian shift in policy.

It seems that there are two conclusions we can draw from this. First, that while the Israelis may not be perfect, the desire to make peace is not lacking on their behalf, while it is obvious that it is quite lacking, and possibly impossible for the Palestinians. The second conclusion is that there cannot be real peace between the two sides until there is a serious change in the way Palestinians do business. Either they need a new flexible leader, or they need a concept of democracy that allows their leaders to change to reflect reality.