- What is the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
I asked ChatGPT, not "who is right?" but what peaceful solution could there be for the conflict, in which Palestinians insist on the right of return for millions of refugees and reclaiming their homes and lands in Haifa, Tel Aviv, West Jerusalem, etc.
And here is its answer:
The scenario presented, where Palestinians insist on the return of all lands and the right of return for all refugees, which by implication would mean the end of the state of Israel as it currently exists, does not leave room for a straightforward peaceful resolution within the existing frameworks that have been discussed over the years.
- Whom would you kill?
I also asked ChatGPT and Google's BARD to respond to the following scenario, which is based - more or less - on a 2008 cultural study.
"A family is in a boat, stuck at sea. A grandfather, father, and a baby. There's only enough water for 2 people, meaning you need to sacrifice one person. Whom would you kill?
A. What would most Americans do?B. What would most Arab Muslims do?
After many apologies from the cute robots about how difficult this moral dilemma is, and how different people make different decisions, etc., they explained that in most cases:
A. What is important to Americans is mainly values of individualism and self-expression. Therefore, Americans would usually kill the grandfather. Why? Because he's already lived enough. The rest have many more years to live, presumably.
B. The consideration for most Muslims would be "what the grandfather decides," and they would assume that whatever the grandfather decides would be based on the greater good. Meaning, if the grandfather feels that the presence of his son (the father) is vital for survival, he would instruct to kill the baby. If survival is possible without the father's efforts, the father will be the one to die.
What does this mean?A cultural gap. And the more explosive and problematic the situation, the more these gaps intensify.
- Why are past solutions irrelevant?
There have been many conflicts in the world that dealt, among other things, with territories and real estate. - Mexico lost vast territories to the USA (e.g., California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, etc.).So why aren't there Mexican suicide bombers blowing up buses, stabbing Americans, and kidnapping children across the border?Why did they prefer peace and life over endless war for territory?
- The Jewish people left behind over 1.5 million homes just in Europe, mainly in Poland and Germany. Assuming the average price of a house today is only 200,000 Euros, we're talking conservatively about 300 billion Euros stolen from the Jewish people - and that's before considering the loss of North African Jews, of course. (The economic compensation from the German government to Holocaust survivors to date is 70 billion Euros, although a significant part of the money, for some reason, did not find its way to the survivors).And here's a question: Why aren't there Jews bombing churches, stabbing people in Munich and Warsaw, and murdering women and children?
- The Native Americans ("Indians") lost vast territories to European migrants, what is now the USA.Why don't they get their real estate back?Why aren't they killing women and children?Why did they settle for economic compensation?
- Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are countries built on lands of native peoples.Was there endless terrorism there?No. There too, the sense of injustice and unfairness was compensated with money, and they preferred it over intergenerational terrorism.
- The peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, despite the harsh war that preceded it and involved many difficult and heavy losses of human lives, was made possible only because Menachem Begin agreed to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, after the Egyptians lost it in the previous war.Since then and to this day, the Egyptians, except for some tourism, have hardly done anything with this vast area, but the principle is that it is "their" land.
- The problem of narrativeThe core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just for land, but also of narrative.The Palestinian narrative is that they are the indigenous people of the land, and that the Israelis are foreign colonialists who came and stole their land. This narrative is widely accepted in the Arab and Muslim world, and increasingly in the West.The Israeli narrative is that the Jews are the indigenous people of the land, returning to their ancestral homeland after centuries of exile, and that the Palestinians are mostly descendants of recent migrants from neighboring Arab countries.These narratives are fundamentally incompatible. Each side sees the other as illegitimate and unjust, and each side's sense of justice and injustice is based on its own narrative.The only way to resolve the conflict is to change the narratives. But this is almost impossible, as each narrative is deeply rooted in history, religion, culture, and identity - and all of those are expresses in how they understand words differently.
- The Power of WordsWords have different meanings when you come from a different culture. What is the common meaning among Muslim Arabs for the following words (this is a bit of a generalization, but it helps illustrate the matter of different perspectives):- Compromise – A solution that neither party is happy with. It's a sign that the right side (them) who agreed to the compromise is weak and submissive.- Mediator – The USA, Russia, or Europe are very happy to serve as mediators, but in the Arab perception, a mediator or a middleman is someone who interferes in a matter that is none of their business. They are especially suspicious of mediators who "supposedly" represent both sides. As far as they are concerned, there is no such thing.- Peace – This doesn't mean we are friends, it just means we are not fighting. This can only exist if the Arabs feel that justice has been done.- Agreement – Something that signifies mutual respect and trust, not necessarily a signed contract.- Democracy – They are very skeptical about it. Why should stupid people, who contribute nothing, make decisions? There are very smart people and they should decide for everyone. And if the West insists on pushing in this direction, it surely can't be good.- Human Rights – A nice idea as long as it doesn't contradict the accepted hierarchy. The family patriarch is the one who decides everything.- Family Hierarchy – Emphasizes the position of men and elders in the hierarchy.- Morality – Social and religious norms accepted in the environment where that Muslim Arab lives.- Sanctity of Life – According to the principles of Islam.- Sacrifice – A noble act that should be done for the family or the common good. In other words, in the formulation of the above example ('Harvard study'), a Muslim Arab usually would not understand how such an immoral act could be considered a "sacrifice".- Reclaiming Lands – An emotionally and historically vital act. In many cases, the identity and heritage of the Muslim Arab are deeply connected to their land. That's why people living in Jordan for 60 years, who have homes, jobs, and families, call themselves "refugees".- Fairness – Social justice, equality, and adherence to cultural and religious norms.- Duty – A strong feeling of obligation towards family, community, religion, and moral values.- Freedom – Not about personal freedom as in the West, but about the freedom of the community to express its culture, its social norms, and to implement its local politics, without external coercion.In other words, when you hear a sentence like "The USA wants to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians, to create a compromise that will lead to peace", you understand that the Palestinians hear this and scoff.They hear – "We think the Palestinians are weak, so we will intervene in a conflict that is not our business, to create a result that is better for the Israelis, and not just or satisfactory for the Palestinians, to create a semblance of peace, even though there is no and will not be justice here".If you were in their place, what would you understand and do?
- So what's the solution?Why wouldn't Palestinians move elsewhere and receive economic compensation?One idea that can be proposed is that Palestinians receive economic compensation, similar to what Holocaust survivors received. Just as the German government significantly assisted the State of Israel, it is possible to take an underutilized area, for example, in Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Syria, and turn it into a new Palestine.There is enough money to make this happen: to create a new land where all the "refugees" will have a home and their own land. It's less complicated to implement than it sounds, and probably simpler than moving the residents of Israel to live in the USA, for example, in the state of Utah - but it still doesn't solve the problem of humiliation and various religious entitlements. "Raahat Palestine" ("Palestine has gone"), that offensive statement made in Arab countries against Palestinians, is a reminder to "the Palestinian fool who gave up his land and fled". When they are fighting Israel, they are fighting this perception too. Just as most of us don't want to give up our home, why should they agree to that?
Director, Site Reliability / Cloud Migration at Thomson Reuters
1 年Sad and true. I lost faith in humanity on Oct 7th.
Emissary of Athens Jewish community - ???? ?????? ??????? ??????
1 年Very interesting! What data did you supply ChatGPT to address the difference in between the Arab and western perspectives?
Technology enthusiast || Innovative IT solutions and staff augmentation || Poland - Israel connector || Entrepreneur
1 年Love your newsletters and posts Eliav ??