Think of “reward and punishment” as being a principle invented by nature to regulate life on Earth so that it evolves according to rules that will sustain it.
Learning that principle from nature, human beings gave
the abstract concept a physical appearance by turning it into a saying that can
be visualized and grasped by everyone. They call their transformation, the
principle of “the carrot and the stick”.
A reality that shows the usefulness of the transformation
is the “greed and fear” which investors experience when they trade on the stock
market. It is easier to explain what happens to these people by saying that
when they make the right trade, the market rewards them with a carrot. But when
they make the wrong trade, the market hits them with a stick.
In fact, even the primates – that do not reason or
communicate verbally the way we do – can still be trained to do the right
things and avoid doing the wrong things by rewarding them with what they like
to eat, or punishing them when doing the wrong things.
Unfortunately however—like everything else that’s handled
by human beings—that concept has been corrupted and made to serve nefarious
ends. How can that be, you ask? Well, imagine you are a humorist who is asked
to write a story involving the concept while highlighting how it can be used to
cause destruction instead of used to help sustain life on Earth.
You rack your brain and hit on the right idea. Instead of
having a character agonize over a choice he must make between two options, with
consequences that can be grave if he made the wrong choice, you delve into your
humorist disposition and come up with a solution: You write a story involving
two characters, not just one.
The two are fighting over the same thing, causing enough
destruction to worry the entire neighborhood. Everyone wants the dispute to end
as soon as possible so that they can all return to the tranquil life they used
to pursue. What you do that is certain to make people laugh and cry at the same
time, is dedicate the use of the carrot to reward and incentivize one
character, while dedicating the use of the stick to punish and intimidate the
other character. This removes the agony of a single character having to choose
between two options.
If you wonder about something like this happening in real
life, you’ll be convinced that it can happen when you read the article that
came under the title: “The Palestinian Tragedy Is Israel’s Too” and the
subtitle: “Given the urgent need for a two-state
settlement, Israel should pursue a revitalized peace process by building off
the Abraham Accords.” The article was written by Chuck Freilich, and published
on October 10, 2022 in The National Interest.
The two fighting characters are the
Palestinians and the Jews of Israel. The writer of the article is an Israeli
Jew who once served as deputy national security adviser in Israel. He chose
America to be the character that agonizes over making a choice between two
options. Freilich solved the problem by giving America two characters to work
with. Being an Israeli Jew, he dedicated the use of the carrot to reward
and incentivize Israel, while dedicating the use of the stick to punish and
intimidate the Palestinians.
Here, in condensed form, is how Freilich wants America to
reward and incentivize Israel:
“Israel has become a global high-tech
power, and its economy is booming. The Israelis have adopted the approach
of yehiye beseder (“things will work out”) and simply moved on. A
peace process should build off the Abraham Accords. Several nations should be
invited to help broker the talks, under the auspices of the US. Inclusion among
the ‘conveners’ would be based on a number of principles. First, Israel’s final
borders will reflect ‘demographic realities’ of the settlement blocs. This
means Israel will retain 4 to 6 percent of the West Bank. Second, Palestinian
refugees would be offered a choice between a ‘return’ to the Palestinian state,
or moving elsewhere, but not to Israel itself. In effect, this would result in
a de facto international disavowal of the Palestinian claim to an unlimited
‘right of return’. The thousands of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza
demonstrate the need for ongoing Israel Defense Forces deployments throughout
the West Bank for defensive purposes. US leverage over Israel is, and should
remain, constrained by the closeness of the relationship and Israel’s ongoing
need for assistance in the face of the threats of Iran and Hezbollah. Even
limited American pressure has major resonance in Israel. Overall, a ‘carrot’
approach would be most effective, including even greater American assistance
for missile defense and potentially a defense treaty; an upgrade of EU ties
with Israel”.
In other words, Freilich is
saying that Israel is perfect, thus America should give it all the carrots it wants
– no questions asked.
And here, in condensed form, is how Freilich wants
America to punish and intimidate the Palestinians:
“With the Palestinians, American and
convener leverage is more straightforward, and the demands must be stark:
abandon the all-or-nothing approach, agree to a state on almost all of the
territory, but not all, and compromise on refugees and Jerusalem or lose
outside support for a Palestinian state. A breakthrough should only be
attempted if and when the appropriate circumstances prevail on both sides, and
even then, only if Washington is truly willing to apply pressure [on the
Palestinians] and offer significant inducements [to Israel.] Bitter experiences
with the corrupt dictatorship of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the
theocracy in Gaza indicate that a future Palestinian state will be another
failed Arab state. This begs the question of why one would continue to pursue a
two-state solution. The answer is simple. The alternative, a binational state,
is far worse”.