DOCSLIB.ORG

Israel-Palestine Through the Lens of Game Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Israel-Palestine Through the Lens of Game Theory University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Economics Department Working Paper Series Economics 2021 Land for peace? Israel-Palestine through the lens of game theory Amal Ahmad Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_workingpaper Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Ahmad, Amal, "Land for peace? Israel-Palestine through the lens of game theory" (2021). Economics Department Working Paper Series. 301. https://doi.org/10.7275/21792057 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economics Department Working Paper Series by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Land for peace? Israel-Palestine through the lens of game theory Amal Ahmad∗ February 2021 Abstract Why have Israel and the Palestinians failed to implement a \land for peace" solution, along the lines of the Oslo Accords? This paper studies the applica- tion of game theory to this question. I show that existing models of the conflict largely rely on unrealistic assumptions about what the main actors are trying to achieve. Specifically, they assume that Israel is strategically interested in withdrawing from the occupied territories pending resolvable security concerns but that it is obstructed from doing so by violent Palestinians with other objec- tives. I use historical analysis along with bargaining theory to shed doubt on this assumption, and to argue that the persistence of conflict has been aligned with, not contrary to, the interests of the militarily powerful party, Israel. JEL Classification: D74, F51 Keywords: Israel-Palestine, international conflicts, strategic behavior ∗Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Email: amalah- [email protected]. I am grateful to James Heintz, Daniele Girardi, Peter Skott, Mariam Majd, Roberto Veneziani, and Emily Wang for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper, as well as the participants of the Analytical Political Economy Workshop. All remaining errors are my own. 1 1 Introduction Strategic political interactions between individuals, political organizations, and states can sometimes be understood as \games" among rational or semi-rational ac- tors. For this reason, game theory has been increasingly applied in political science to subjects such as public choice (Rowley and Schneider, 2004), voting theory (Ace- moglu, 2010), lobbying (Aitken-Turff and Jackson, 2006), civil war (Blattman and Miguel, 2010), and inter-state conflict (Powell, 2002). This paper contributes to the literature on game theory applications to inter-state political conflict; specifically, I investigate the application of game theory to one of the most protracted conflicts of the past century, the Israeli-Palestinian one. I examine papers that use game theoretic principles to explain key components of the conflict and highlight what they assume about the actors' strategic interests. I then offer a critique of some of the predominant assumptions in the literature, and draw on bargaining theory to exemplify different ways that game theory can more realistically model strategic interests and explain the endurance of the conflict. The review of the game theoretic literature on Israel-Palestine makes three things clear. First, the application of game theory to the subject has been limited even though the conflict is one of the most protracted and hotly debated of the twentieth century. The number of studies is small and many of them follow in the fifteen year period immediately after the initiation of the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993. The Accords, signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), promised a five year plan for Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967 and grant Palestinians sovereignty in exchange for Palestinian compliance with Israeli security demands; this is referred to as the two-state solution or \land for peace" paradigm. Figure 1 shows the occupied Palestinian territories (West Bank, East 2 Jerusalem, and Gaza) over which the Accords were negotiated. [Figure 1 here] Second, the majority of papers aim to use the principles of strategic interaction and rational behavior to explain the increasingly obvious failure of the Oslo Accords in generating a two-state solution. Instead of two sovereign states, the post-Oslo period has been marred by continued Israeli settlement growth as well as episodes of violence, including during the second Palestinian Intifada or uprising (2000-2005). Eschewing the idea that the absence of a solution is illogical, these papers are interested in pointing to strategic interests that can explain continued conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Methodologically, many use formal models though some apply game theoretic principles to Israel-Palestine without formal modelling. Third, when distilled to their core assumptions, many papers, and most formal ones, assume that the Israeli state is strategically interested in withdrawing and granting the Palestinians sovereignty over the territory occupied in 1967 pending resolvable security concerns, but that all or some Palestinians have other objectives and use violence to achieve them, thereby explaining the collapse of any land for peace deal. Informed by these assumptions, the existing models largely present the conflict as an impasse or deadlock perpetuated by short-term hostilities, with the responsibility for this impasse falling on the shoulders of these Palestinian factions conducting or aiding hostilities. The assumption that the militarily strong party, Israel, is willing to withdraw from the occupied territories in a land for peace deal is so embedded in these models that it often goes unexplained and undefended. Instead, the main debate (and differ- ence between the models) concerns the motivations and strategies of the Palestinians spoiling this opportunity. 3 In contrast, I show that papers on Israel-Palestine that draw on the principles of game theory and strategic behavior but informally and using interdisciplinary meth- ods suggest alternative explanations for the failure of the two-state solution. In particular, these papers suggest that Israel is possibly not willing, for reasons beyond security concerns, to withdraw from the occupied territories. However, the inference from these papers about the strategic interests of relevant parties is often implicit, not highlighted with clarity, and limited to the analysis of short time periods. The informal analyses also make a comparison with more formal contributions difficult. After examining the above literature, I argue that the predominant assumption in the formal game theoretic models, that Israel is strategically interested in withdraw- ing from the occupied territories, is flawed. I do this by overviewing Israeli settlement policy since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, since settlements are very costly and difficult-to-reverse investments and are thus a credible signal of long-term strate- gic interest in the land. This analysis shows that Israel has pursued the expansion, not retrenchment, of its control in the occupied territories as a top national priority under all circumstances. I also show how Israel's security discourse can be understood in this context. To highlight the importance of the land for peace assumption in driving any conclusions about the conflict, I sketch the outlines of an alternative game, adapted from Fearon (1997), that assumes that Israel instead sees the territories as highly strategic and integral for its future. Under these modified assumptions, the game can produce a moving equilibrium where Israel pursues nonstop settlement expansion in the territories, effectively blocking the possibility of a two-state solution and matching what we see on the ground. The conclusions thus become very different to those in the formal literature, and, as I argue, more historically plausible. I conclude that it is plausible that the militarily dominant party (Israel) is not 4 interested in relinquishing control over the territories but the opposite, that this is not a temporary result of security concerns but rooted in the long term interests of the state in a highly strategic asset, and that this can help explain the worsening trajectory of the conflict. Moreover, contracts like the Oslo Peace Accords would by design fail to produce a two-state solution since they would not be self-enforced. This paper's contribution is twofold. First, it illustrates how game theory has been applied to an important and ongoing conflict, driven, at least in the formal literature, by dubious assumptions about the strategic interests of the key parties involved. In turn, this renders the ability of these models to explain the trajectory of the conflict poor at best, and misleading at worst. Second, the paper helps clarify our thinking about Israel-Palestine by addressing head-on the question of strategic national interests, using analysis at the intersection of history and game theory. To my knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically tackle the application of game theory to Israel-Palestine. The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 examines the literature that applies game theoretic principles to the subject, classifying papers by the assumptions they make about Israel and the Palestinians' strategic interests. Section 3 provides a historical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Collusion Constrained Equilibrium
    Theoretical Economics 13 (2018), 307–340 1555-7561/20180307 Collusion constrained equilibrium Rohan Dutta Department of Economics, McGill University David K. Levine Department of Economics, European University Institute and Department of Economics, Washington University in Saint Louis Salvatore Modica Department of Economics, Università di Palermo We study collusion within groups in noncooperative games. The primitives are the preferences of the players, their assignment to nonoverlapping groups, and the goals of the groups. Our notion of collusion is that a group coordinates the play of its members among different incentive compatible plans to best achieve its goals. Unfortunately, equilibria that meet this requirement need not exist. We instead introduce the weaker notion of collusion constrained equilibrium. This al- lows groups to put positive probability on alternatives that are suboptimal for the group in certain razor’s edge cases where the set of incentive compatible plans changes discontinuously. These collusion constrained equilibria exist and are a subset of the correlated equilibria of the underlying game. We examine four per- turbations of the underlying game. In each case,we show that equilibria in which groups choose the best alternative exist and that limits of these equilibria lead to collusion constrained equilibria. We also show that for a sufficiently broad class of perturbations, every collusion constrained equilibrium arises as such a limit. We give an application to a voter participation game that shows how collusion constraints may be socially costly. Keywords. Collusion, organization, group. JEL classification. C72, D70. 1. Introduction As the literature on collective action (for example, Olson 1965) emphasizes, groups often behave collusively while the preferences of individual group members limit the possi- Rohan Dutta: [email protected] David K.
    [Show full text]
  • Sociographie De La Doxa Coloniale Israélienne
    Université de Montréal Se représenter dominant et victime : sociographie de la doxa coloniale israélienne par Michaël Séguin Département de sociologie Faculté des arts et sciences Thèse présentée en vue de l’obtention du grade de Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.) en sociologie Août 2018 © Michaël Séguin, 2018 Université de Montréal Faculté des études supérieures et postdoctorales Cette thèse intitulée : Se représenter dominant et victime : sociographie de la doxa coloniale israélienne Présentée par : Michaël Séguin a été évaluée par un jury composé des personnes suivantes : Deena White, présidente-rapporteuse et représentante du doyen Paul Sabourin, directeur de recherche Yakov Rabkin, codirecteur de recherche Barbara Thériault, membre du jury Rachad Antonius, examinateur externe Résumé Dans un monde majoritairement postcolonial, Israël fait figure d’exception alors même que se perpétue sa domination d’un autre peuple, les Arabes palestiniens. Tandis qu’un nombre grandissant d’auteurs, y compris juifs, traitent de la question israélo-palestinienne comme d’un colonialisme de peuplement, et non plus comme d’un conflit ethnique entre groupes nationaux, se pose la question : comment une telle domination est-elle possible à l’ère des médias de masse ? Plus précisément, pourquoi cette domination est-elle si peu contestée de l’intérieur de la société israélienne alors même qu’elle contredit le discours public de l’État qui tente, par tous les moyens, de se faire accepter comme étant démocratique et éclairé ? Pour y répondre, cette thèse procède à une analyse de la connaissance de sens commun israélienne afin de détecter à la fois le mode de connaissance, issu des relations sociales, privilégié pour faire sens des rapports ethnonationaux, mais aussi la manière dont cette doxa vient légitimer la domination des Palestiniens.
    [Show full text]
  • On Some Winning Strategies for the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Or Mr
    Chapter 1 On some winning strategies for the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma or Mr. Nice Guy and the Cosa Nostra Wolfgang Slany Wolfgang Kienreich Technical University Know-Center Graz, Austria Graz, Austria [email protected] [email protected] We submitted two kinds of strategies to the iterated prisoner’s dilemma (IPD) competitions organized by Graham Kendall, Paul Darwen and Xin Yao in 2004 and 20051. Our strategies performed exceedingly well in both years. One type is an intelligent and optimistic enhanced version of the well known TitForTat strategy which we named OmegaTitForTat. It recognizes common behaviour patterns and detects and recovers from repairable mutual defect deadlock situations, otherwise behaving much like TitForTat. OmegaTitForTat was placed as the first or second individual strategy in both competitions in the leagues in which it took part. The second type consists of a set of strategies working together as a team. The call for participation of the competitions explicitly stated that cooperative strategies would be allowed to participate. This allowed a form of implicit communication which is not in keeping with the original IPD idea, but represents a natural extension to the study of cooperative behaviour in reality as it is aimed at through the study of the simple, yet 1 See http://www.prisoners-dilemma.com/ for more details. 1 2 Book Title insightful, iterated prisoner’s dilemma model. Indeed, one’s behaviour towards another person in reality is very often influenced by one’s relation to the other person. In particular, we submitted three sets of strategies that work together as groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Camp David at 40
    Reflections on Camp David at 40 How the Camp David Accords became a limited Egyptian–Israeli peace effort that ultimately transformed Arab–Israeli relations across the Middle East By William B. Quandt hen President Jimmy Carter and his foreign policy team began to address the Arab–Israeli conflict in early 1977, they had several W important reference points in mind. First was the vivid memory of the 1973 October War and the threat it had posed to international security as well as economic prosperity. No one wanted to see a repeat of such a dramatic and dangerous conflict. In addition, there was the beginning of a serious diplomatic process begun under the careful guidance of Henry Kissinger, secretary of state for both Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Three agreements on the disengagement of military forces had been reached, two between Egypt and Israel, and one between Syria and Israel, which set the stage for Carter’s own diplomatic efforts in the Arab–Israeli arena. Finally, the United States had good working relations with most of the key parties in the conflict, other than the Palestinians, and Carter was eager to deepen those relations in pursuit of peace in the Holy Land, something that was particularly appealing to him as a devout Christian. All of this meant that the team around the president, which included several participants in the Brookings Report of 1975, were predisposed to support a U.S.-led effort to achieve a comprehensive solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict, including some form of self-determination for the Palestinians—the main goals identified by the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Order and Containment in Concurrent System Design Copyright Fall 2000
    Order and Containment in Concurrent System Design Copyright Fall 2000 by John Sidney Davis II 1 Abstract Order and Containment in Concurrent System Design by John Sidney Davis II Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering-Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of California at Berkeley Professor Edward A. Lee, Chair This dissertation considers the dif®culty of modeling and designing complex, concurrent systems. The term concurrent is used here to mean a system consisting of a network of commu- nicating components. The term complex is used here to mean a system consisting of components with different models of computation such that the communication between different components has different semantics according to the respective interacting models of computation. Modeling and designing a concurrent system requires a clear understanding of the types of relationships that exist between the components found within a concurrent system. Two partic- ularly important types of relationships found in concurrent systems are the order relation and the containment relation. The order relation represents the relative timing of component actions within a concurrent system. The containment relation facilitates human understanding of a system by ab- stracting a system's components into layers of visibility. The consequence of improper management of the order and containment relationships in a complex, concurrent system is deadlock. Deadlock is an undesirable halting of a system's execution and is the most challenging type of concurrent system error to debug. The contents of this disserta- tion show that no methodology is currently available that can concisely, accurately and graphically 2 model both the order and containment relations found in complex, concurrent systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Coopetition: Is Transparency a Fallacy Or a Mandatory Condition? a Case Study of a Coopetition Project with an Opportunistic Partner
    XXVIe Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique Managing coopetition: Is transparency a fallacy or a mandatory condition? A case study of a coopetition project with an opportunistic partner Sea Matilda Bez Université de Montpellier (MOMA) et Université Paris-Dauphine (PSL) [email protected] Frédéric Le Roy Université de Montpellier (MOMA) et Montpellier Business School [email protected] Stéphanie Dameron Université Paris-Dauphine (PSL) [email protected] Abstract : We investigate why and how knowledge transparency between competitors are needed for radical innovation. Previous scholars considered that coopetition (i.e. collaboration between competing firms) could not be a suitable strategy. Knowledge transparency invites opportunism. Thus, even for a radical innovation purpose, being highly transparent with a competitor is a fallacy. Our research goes beyond this specific approach of coopetition and reveals that firms can preserve transparency even if the partners behave opportunistically. We develop counter-intuitive propositions based on a conceptual discussion followed by insight from an extreme case study of a pharmaceutical company opening its innovation project to a competitor who behaves opportunistically (i.e. the Plavix). Our study mainly highlights that firms need to fight against the intuitive reaction of reducing transparency when the partner behaves opportunistically. Reducing the transparency inevitably leads to “shooting itself in the foot” because the reduction of transparency of one partner leads to the destruction of any possibility to create a radical innovation. Moreover, our research represents interesting guidelines for top managers by : (1) confirming that coopetition strategies are relevant in addressing the challenges of radical innovation, and (2) highlighting a specific organization design to manage transparency in a coopetitive project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gulf States and the Middle East Peace Process: Considerations, Stakes, and Options
    ISSUE BRIEF 08.25.20 The Gulf States and the Middle East Peace Process: Considerations, Stakes, and Options Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, Ph.D, Fellow for the Middle East conflict, the Gulf states complied with and INTRODUCTION enforced the Arab League boycott of Israel This issue brief examines where the six until at least 1994 and participated in the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council— oil embargo of countries that supported 1 Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. In Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates 1973, for example, the president of the (UAE)—currently stand in their outlook and UAE, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, approaches toward the Israeli-Palestinian claimed that “No Arab country is safe from issue. The first section of this brief begins by the perils of the battle with Zionism unless outlining how positions among the six Gulf it plays its role and bears its responsibilities, 2 states have evolved over the three decades in confronting the Israeli enemy.” In since the Madrid Conference of 1991. Section Kuwait, Sheikh Fahd al-Ahmad Al Sabah, a two analyzes the degree to which the six brother of two future Emirs, was wounded Gulf states’ relations with Israel are based while fighting with Fatah in Jordan in 3 on interests, values, or a combination of 1968, while in 1981 the Saudi government both, and how these differ from state to offered to finance the reconstruction of state. Section three details the Gulf states’ Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor after it was 4 responses to the peace plan unveiled by destroyed by an Israeli airstrike.
    [Show full text]
  • A Threshold Crossed Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution WATCH
    HUMAN RIGHTS A Threshold Crossed Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution WATCH A Threshold Crossed Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution Copyright © 2021 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-62313-900-1 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org APRIL 2021 ISBN: 978-1-62313-900-1 A Threshold Crossed Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution Map .................................................................................................................................. i Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2 Definitions of Apartheid and Persecution .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Return to Defensible Borders
    A Return to Defensible Borders an iker week after his historic White House summit with United States Presi- A dent George W. Bush in April, 2004, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stood before a packed Knesset plenum. A sense of triumph could be heard in his voice as he presented a list of American assurances that he had secured in a letter from the president. e letter was offered as a quid pro quo for Sharon’s promise to withdraw all Israeli troops and civilians from the Gaza Strip, known as the “disengagement plan.” Sharon recited the key components of the Bush letter: (i) U.S. support for the repatriation of Palestinian refugees to a future Palestinian state only, and not to Israel; (ii) an American commitment that Israel would retain large population centers in the West Bank and would therefore not be asked to return to the 1949 armistice lines, Israel’s de facto border until June 1967; (iii) a U.S. promise that there would be no other peace plan put forward except the pre- viously agreed-upon “roadmap,” which made Israeli concessions contingent upon a complete halt to Palestinian terror and incitement. is was a crucial moment for Sharon. Since he first announced his disengagement plan in December 2003 at a speech to the Herzliya Confer- ence, he had been sharply criticized by opponents both within his Likud party and among the more hard-line Knesset factions who accused him • A / • of giving up tangible assets in exchange for nothing, not even a commit- ment to peaceful coexistence, from the Palestinian side.
    [Show full text]
  • B'tselem Report: Dispossession & Exploitation: Israel's Policy in the Jordan Valley & Northern Dead Sea, May
    Dispossession & Exploitation Israel's policy in the Jordan Valley & northern Dead Sea May 2011 Researched and written by Eyal Hareuveni Edited by Yael Stein Data coordination by Atef Abu a-Rub, Wassim Ghantous, Tamar Gonen, Iyad Hadad, Kareem Jubran, Noam Raz Geographic data processing by Shai Efrati B'Tselem thanks Salwa Alinat, Kav LaOved’s former coordinator of Palestinian fieldworkers in the settlements, Daphna Banai, of Machsom Watch, Hagit Ofran, Peace Now’s Settlements Watch coordinator, Dror Etkes, and Alon Cohen-Lifshitz and Nir Shalev, of Bimkom. 2 Table of contents Introduction......................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter One: Statistics........................................................................................................ 8 Land area and borders of the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea area....................... 8 Palestinian population in the Jordan Valley .................................................................... 9 Settlements and the settler population........................................................................... 10 Land area of the settlements .......................................................................................... 13 Chapter Two: Taking control of land................................................................................ 15 Theft of private Palestinian land and transfer to settlements......................................... 15 Seizure of land for “military needs”.............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's National Security and West Bank Settlements
    Israel’s National Security and West Bank Settlements Israel’s National Security and West Bank Settlements Academic supervision: Dr. Avner Inbar and Dr. Assaf Sharon Research and writing: Avishay Ben-Sasson Gordis Additional writing and editing: Yonatan Levi Additional research: Shai Agmon © All rights reserved to Molad - Center for the Translation: Michelle Bubis Renewal of Democracy Ltd. Contents Introduction and key findings 4 Chapter 1: From strategy to excuse: The history of the security argument 7 Chapter 2: The settlements as security burden 14 Chapter 3: National security without settlements 26 Summary: The battle over security 36 4 Introduction and key findings The single greatest challenge to Israel’s national security is the conflict with the Palestinians. While it would be mistaken to reduce the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a single factor, the territorial question is arguably the determinative cause underlying the intractability of the conflict. The territorial question, in turn, is inextricably tied to Israel’s establishment of settlements – i.e., civilian communities - beyond the Green Line. Yet despite the conflict’s influence on Israel’s security, and even though the settlements will play a crucial role in determining the future of the conflict, public debate has sorely lacked serious discussion of the settlements’ impact on Israel’s national security. This paper attempts to fill the void by providing a comprehensive, fact-based analysis of the implications of the settlement enterprise on Israeli security. The analysis is backed by data and by input from Israel’s leading security professionals. The goal of this paper is not to end the debate but rather to spark it – in the hope that, even in the current muddy political climate, it will be possible to responsibly discuss a matter vital to the future of all Israelis.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's Rights As a Nation-State in International Diplomacy
    Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Institute for Research and Policy המרכז הירושלמי לענייני ציבור ומדינה )ע"ר( ISRAEl’s RiGHTS as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy Israel’s Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy © 2011 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs – World Jewish Congress Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 13 Tel Hai Street, Jerusalem, Israel Tel. 972-2-561-9281 Fax. 972-2-561-9112 Email: [email protected] www.jcpa.org World Jewish Congress 9A Diskin Street, 5th Floor Kiryat Wolfson, Jerusalem 96440 Phone : +972 2 633 3000 Fax: +972 2 659 8100 Email: [email protected] www.worldjewishcongress.com Academic Editor: Ambassador Alan Baker Production Director: Ahuva Volk Graphic Design: Studio Rami & Jaki • www.ramijaki.co.il Cover Photos: Results from the United Nations vote, with signatures, November 29, 1947 (Israel State Archive) UN General Assembly Proclaims Establishment of the State of Israel, November 29, 1947 (Israel National Photo Collection) ISBN: 978-965-218-100-8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Overview Ambassador Alan Baker .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 The National Rights of Jews Professor Ruth Gavison ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9 “An Overwhelmingly Jewish State” - From the Balfour Declaration to the Palestine Mandate
    [Show full text]