Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@cyphunk cyphunk/
Last active Jun 26, 2019

What would you like to do? [edit 2019: does this RAND data show that one party has strategic gain by hurting themselves?]
#!/usr/bin/env python
Numbers based on defaults provided in scenarios. They intended
to show what Israel or PA have to gain from peace, but did not notice how
their data makes violence appear even closer.
Addition 2019: for a more verbose description and interpretation of this
data see the comment at end of file.
ISRAEL PALESTINE scenarios in $ GDP % GDP % in $ advantage
two_state_solution 22.8b 10.4% : : 97.0% 9.7b 936%
withdrawal_coordinated -0.2b -0.1% : : 15.0% 1.5b 16500%
withdrawal_uncoordinated -4.0b -1.8% : : -1.0% -0.1b 55%
resistance_nonviolent -15.0b -6.8% : : -24.0% -2.4b -352%
resistance_violent -45.1b -20.5% : : -91.0% -9.1b -444%
(base nominal GDP: Isr 220.0b, Pal 10.0b)
This shows how rational the step from nonviolent to violent resistance
is because of all scenarios describe the step that provides the
least obstruction to change is the step between non-violent and violent.
Policy makers should be encouraged to increase the distance between the
two (violent, non-violent). If making violence more-costly isn't possible
(-91% to PA GDP is rather extreme already) then we may do better making
nonviolent resistance less-costly.
# Isr Pal
('two_state_solution', [ 22.8, 9.7]),
('withdrawal_coordinated', [ -0.2, 1.5]),
('withdrawal_uncoordinated', [ -4.0, -0.1]),
('resistance_nonviolent', [-15.0, -2.4]),
('resistance_violent', [-45.1, -9.1])
# Isr Pal
gdp = [220,10] # Wikipedia
#gdp = [257.2,11.26] # World Bank 2012
#gdp = [439,13.9] # 2024 projected GDP
# page 23
print " scenarios in $ GDP % GDP % in $ advantage"
print ""
import math
for i in gdpgainloss:
gdpmul_isr = i[1][0]/gdp[0]
gdpmul_pal = i[1][1]/gdp[1]
print "%-24s %5sb %5s%% : : %5s%% %5sb"%(i[0], i[1][0], "%2.1f"%(gdpmul_isr*100), "%2.1f"%(gdpmul_pal*100), i[1][1]),
advantage_pal = gdpmul_pal / gdpmul_isr
if gdpmul_pal >= gdpmul_isr:
advantage_pal = math.copysign(advantage_pal, 1)
advantage_pal = math.copysign(advantage_pal, gdpmul_isr)
print " %6s%%"%("%5.0f"%(advantage_pal*100))
print "(base nominal GDP: Isr %.1fb, Pal %.1fb)"%(gdp[0],gdp[1])
I originally wrote this in response to what I felt was Randian neivity
that ignored the stratigic impitus that can cause violence to be seen,
among some, as a valid tool, while entirely discounting the value
of non-violent protest as a form to prevent that violence. I will try
to clarify what I was thinking at the time.
If the Isr and Pal entities are assumed to be playing "against"
eachother then the stratigic advantage or disadvantage should be
considered. The "advantage" column shows what Pal has to gain or lose
in *comparison* to what Isr has to gain or lose.
The RAND message was that both parties gain the most, in real GDP, from
a two state solution. The data does not dispute this. In that scenerio
Pal GDP increases 936% more from base GDP in comparison to Isr increase
from their own base GDP. But the data tells other stories too.
In the scenerios of two state solution, withdrawal coordinated, and
withdrawal uncoordinated, Isr is stratigically disadvantaged. Does this
incentivise Isr to avoid persuing these scenerios?
The original statement, that the step to violence provides the least
resistance with greatest possible stratigic advantage, has to do with
the assumption that a scenerio where nothing happens cannot be held
infinitely. I think that the scenerio resistance_nonviolent is
currently in progress. If so then of all of the remaining scenerios,
violence provides the lowest barrier, and is one that extremests and
militants could be convinced would provide an increased stratigic
advantage. Having lived through the 2nd Intifada I think this
reasoning has been realized before and worry it would again.
I fear that non-violent protest may be the only thing standing in the
way of violence. And I am worried that the step from non-violence
to violence is so small. I think too many ignore that, for some,
turning the stick into a weapon can seem more plausible then
obtaining the carrot on it. My belief is that to further reduce the
strategic value of violence the distance between its advantage and
that of non-violence should be increased. This would mean making
non-violence less-costly for Pal.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.