Or what do politicians actually argue about?
By Ron Raskin
There’s a heated debate over the difficult choice facing Israel in its Gaza War: Should Israel end the war in Gaza or persist until total victory is achieved? The discussion is so intense that it seems neither side has attempted to understand the other’s perspective. I’ll try to summarize the different viewpoints and, more importantly, how each side arrived at them.
The main difference between the opposing sides seems to be their perception of time: whether a period of “peace” would work in Israel’s favor or not.
The right-wing, particularly its pragmatic faction (excluding figures like Ben Gvir who prioritize ideology over practical assessment), believes that the longer we wait, the larger the problem will grow. Meanwhile, the left-wing (excluding far-left who also prioritize ideology over ongoing situation assessment) believes that a period of peace will allow us to improve the situation, whether through a Saudi deal, new weapons, or other factors.
The second key aspect of this heated debate is prioritization: given that Israel needs to address the problem as soon as possible, where should it focus its resources first—Gaza, Hezbollah, or Iran? If Iran loses its hold over the Middle East, it could pave the way for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Conversely, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would also significantly weaken Iran’s influence in the region.
This decision, of course, must account for various constraints, such as the lives of hostages and U.S. support. Notably, this dimension is less reliant on intuition and mentality and more grounded in data, which should theoretically leave less room for speculation. However, in practice, there still seem to be disagreements on this issue, even within the government and among military and political elites.
When examining the approaches of the right and left wings more broadly, the right wing is generally associated with “local optimization,” focusing on relatively simple, low-hanging fruit solutions. On the other hand, the left wing usually tends to look for the best solution by looking as far ahead and as far around as possible, which requires them to extrapolate from the present to the future. If their extrapolation and logic are correct, their solution may be superior. However, if they are wrong, it can lead to disaster, as was the case with forward-looking planned economies like communism, which ultimately failed against the more local, individual-centered planning approach of capitalism. In this context, it’s natural for the right wing to embrace the absence of a “day after” plan, allowing them to focus on short-term, localized decisions and effectively making the “no long-term plans” approach their strategy. This stance, however, is unacceptable to the forward-looking left wing.
Additionally, there are tactical political considerations at play within the broader democratic struggle for power. While we previously dismissed the far-right and far-left wings as not directly influencing current government decisions, they still exert an indirect impact. While we previously dismissed the far-right and far-left wings as not directly influencing current government decisions, they still exert an indirect impact. Some factions within the right wing are moving further right, aiming to capture potential electoral support and leaving no room for the far-right.
It’s clear that only someone with access to all the details and information can accurately assess the optimal allocation of resources and the likelihood of success for each course of action. Of course, having the data is not enough—it must also be thoroughly analyzed. Hopefully, the Israeli government can conduct this analysis successfully, though many harbor doubts about this..
As for the public, they will only learn about the success or failure of the chosen path (since “history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood”) sometime in the future…