I discovered a game the other day called PeaceMaker, which is a simulated game in which you get to be either the Israeli Prime Minister or the Palestinian President, and you have to figure out how to end the conflict.
It is based on real-life events, and you are confronted with various scenarios - settler violence, protests, suicide bombings, and various internal political conflicts, and you have to make choices about security, political maneuvers, diplomacy, aid, etc to respond to the scenarios. The objective is to get to a place where both Israel and Palestine are at 100 percent approval, at which point, you win - a two state solution has been achieved.
It's an interesting game, and I've had fun playing it. I have ended the struggle 5 times now--what's wrong with you, Olmert and Abbas? Want me to show you how it's done? I will say that it's much easier to win when you're playing the role of the Israeli Prime Minister. (hmm...)
What I like about it - in order to win, it requires both parties to consider the needs of the other. It's also an interesting game for learning about the various internal issues that are preventing any real life peacemakers from achieving peace.
What I'm not so crazy about is the fact that the winning state is the two-state solution. Why? For one, when you play the game, you see how inextricably linked the Israelis and Palestinians are. Also, the tricky final status issues - borders, Jerusalem, refugees - really don't seem to play into the calculus to win the game....each time I won, I never had to make choices about those factors. It makes me think that if those were part of the equation - which they are in real life - that achieving a two state solution may not be realistic.
It's also a bit Israelo-centric. In some ways, that's realistic, given the assymetry of the power balance, and expected because it was designed by Israelis. But in others, it's problematic. It's not quite as good at showing the human side of the Palestinians as it is the Israelis. It also doesn't show the struggle of the Palestinians - rarely do you hear about things like water shortages, or protecting people from air strikes, for example, and even in "calm mode" there are a shocking number of suicide attacks, which really aren't that frequent.
My grade: B
I'd like to see a one-state solution option, and I'd also like to have different levels, where various core issues are addressed. Also, get a few Palestinians on the design team, please!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Jessica,
Thanks so much for playing and reviewing our game. I am curious re how you got hold of PeaceMaker and was that part of the distribution through Al-Quds? For the record- Palestinians were deeply involved in the creation of the game. You can read a relevant post here:
http://www.peacemakergame.com/blog/2007/01/25/developed-by-palestinians-and-israelis
It is very interesting that both sides accused us of misrepresenting their point of view or that one side was much easier than the other. We got numerous comments from Israelis that the game is pro-Palestinian... interesting, hu?
In any case, please feel free to contact us, we would love to hear more about the utilization of the game in the West Bank.
Thanks Asi.
I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks that it's easier to win as the Palestinian President.
I also would wonder who thought it was pro-Palestinian. I imagine it would probably be the ones who think that the Arabs all belong in Jordan.
I think that I ran across a reference to the game in Haaretz, and don't know how it's being utilized in the West Bank. I'd certainly be interested in getting copies of it for students at the Friends School though!
Jessica,
One example could be found in the following link: http://www.peacemakergame.com/blog/2007/02/11/asymmetric-gameplay-asymmetric-feedback
I heard it a lot from Americans, many found the Palestinian side easier for some reason.
Regarding the "pro-palestinian" comment- these are not Israelis on the margins but almost everyone who is not on the left side of the Israeli political map. Many Israelis view the game as too optimistic due to the lack of partnership or control on the other side (in "reality"). So we hear a lot is: "yes, we are for the two-state-solution but there is no one who could execute on the other side and we may need to wait years for that to happen".
In any case, I wouldn't open the political debate as this is not my personal opinion and the game is not structured in such a way.
The whole argument about "there is no one on the other side" is prevalent among both sides.
Those of us who stand in the cross-fire are a bit befuddled, as I see partners everywhere.
As I see it, if people wait much longer for a partner to emerge, two viable states will be impossible.
As it is, it would require the dismantling of settlements along the Green Line and the West Bank and withdrawal of hundreds of thousands of settlers (or their sudden willingness to live peacefully in a Palestinian state as law-abiding Jewish Palestinians). No Palestinian leader will emerge that will allow the settlements to remain intact, with Israeli control of bypass roads, borders and airspace.
I'll probably have to elaborate on this in a longer blog post.
Jessica, Just wondering- have you been able to get in touch with the guys at the Peres Center? Please let me know if you need any further assistance.
Post a Comment