Consider the alternatives to a two-state solution: In the long run, one of the sides would have to assimilate or exterminate the other. With all the violent and genocidal consequences it implies, this is not a peaceful scenario at all. And assuming that at least one of the sides did not actually want peace, well that would amount to a stalemate at best – which would be quite close to the current situation and thus no progress but stagnation – or, in the worst case, an all-out war.

So again, if you are someone who truly wants to promote a step-by-step approach to peace for the region, which I deem the creators to be, there really is no other assumption you can possibly logically make – or at least I am not seeing it.

I salute the makers of this game for their pacifistic vision and their willingness to delve into a very complicated and hotly discussed subject. They could have produced just another meaningless good-vs-evil combat game, but they didn’t and the world is better for it.

The Jabotinsky manifesto remains a Likud value inherited from Irgun which says West Bank (Samaria) has to be part of the Israeli State. Any of you who remember your New Testament lessons know very well that Judeans hated Samaritans if any of that story is true, so why now do they want to include that territory as theirs? Israel and the US need to refute this manifesto hidden from voters eyes.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky writing in Russia in the 1920s likened 1600-1800s Europeans who conquered North America and disenfranchised or genocided Indigenous Native Americans as Noble. His whole idea is that the Zionist solution means an “iron ring” around Palestinians, which doesn’t sound too promising, Palestinians who had nothing to do with this except be occupied by “Christian” Britain after 1918 collapse of Ottoman Empire.

You need to rethink this simplistic assumption.

And the the Israeli side, with US private and public backing had better come clean about what “peace” means, and what the US media tells majority of well-meaning pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro-two state solution US citizens underwriting this whole thing that “peace” means in this conflict.

There is a lot of duplicity and double-sided mouth talking here from every government involved, especially Washington which has used the situation to its own advantage since losing Iran as the greatest Middle-East ally and oil supplier in 1979, and US Congress and Media plays a very bad part in the obfuscation system.

The game may be right that a two-state solution is the only solution, but all the real states involved pretend that that has not been the case. Especially today now they’re quoting texts about Amalekites. Pathetic!

1) Although we believe that both sides want “peace”, their definition of peace is very different. Many believe the Israelis view peace as non-violence and security, while the Palestinians view it as a fair and just solution to their suffering, the continuous occupation and their expulsion. That in itself is a gap that makes cooperation so difficult and thus keeps your decision makers’ challenge intact.

2) The IP conflict is asymmetric in its nature. One of the main challenges is building leadership and control on the Palestinian side. In a society on the verge of a civil war, with no real sovereignty, many would argue that the traditional models are not even applicable as the Palestinian leader can’t really deescalate or create an effective deterrence. So when we define that “the Palestinian side wants peace”, the real dilemma or unanswered question for the other side is really- “can the Palestinian side in its current form execute a peace agenda”?

3) Both societies are highly divided. We are not dealing with a central government that has to deal with a minority of “rogue elements” but almost a schizophrenic society. What is the face of the Palestinians? Fatah who negotiated with Israel and acknowledged a peaceful two-state solution or Hamas that doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist? And in Israel- is it the face of Rabin who signed the Oslo agreement or Netanyahu who opposes negotiating with the current Palestinian government? What makes it even harder is the instability of these authorities and their inability to execute long-term plans or even maintain a full term in office.

So, to conclude, although we assume that both sides want peace and that the two-state solution is the end-goal, we believe that the core questions and challenges are still open due to the complexity of the situation. I would welcome you to play the demo or the full game and to experience how this is applied in (virtual) reality.

The assumption is problematic because often the challenge is knowing what model to apply to a crisis: the spiral or deterrence model. In the first model, players are in a security dilemma and the solution is deescalation; but in the second model, deterrence is the best option because the other player does not want to deescalate. The difficulty is knowing in what situation you are in, because each model prescribes something that would make matters worse if you are in fact in the other situation.

Because of the assumption that both sides want peace, it is clear that the leaders are in a security dilemma, and the most sensible course of action is reassurance and deescalation, while not retaliating (or retaliating selectively) following attacks by rogue elements from the other side. However, if in fact the other side does not want peace, not retaliating will only encourage, strengthen and embolden them. Therefore, the assumption is unrealistic and skewed towards the application of one model over the other, thus skipping what is often the central challenge for decision makers.

[Alternatively, one could argue that in game theoretic terms the best course of action is tit-for-tat since both players seem to be locked in a prisoner's dilemma. (Naturally, the prisonner's dilemma is also the basis of the security dilemma.) However tit-for-tat assumes that actors are rational and unitary, which does not fit with the assumption that one does not have complete control over one's own side.]

The assumption about the two states solution is also problematic because it assumes that the situation is not a zero-sum game; together with the assumption that both sides want peace, this leads by necessity to cooperation as the preferable outcome. In fact, this is so true that it is tautological. Of course, often the problem for decision-makers is to ascertain whether the other side also sees the world in absolute terms rather than relative terms (that is, whether they believe that they are in a zero-sum game or not). Thus, we’Re back to the problem of deciding whether the spiral or deterrence model applies.

It would therefore seem that the game evacuates much of what makes the problem so difficult to solve in the real world.