Where are the rational actors?

Academics and pundits specializing in international relations and politics often talk about "rational actors," who make decisions and take actions based on a careful consideration of options and consequences.

In theory this is a good model, but the reality, as shown by thousands of years of human folly, and Jewish history in particular, highlights the absence of rational actors. Instead of prudent examination of the costs and benefits of alternative courses and decisions, people are swayed by emotions, slogans and myths, leading to catastrophe.

The dangers of such irrationality are very visible after the devastation of civil war, when the survivors comprehend the scale of their calamity.

This is certainly the case for the self-inflicted disasters in Jewish history such as the division of the kingdom after Solomon's reign, or the conflict that led to the destruction of the Second Temple. The American Civil War, France's Reign of Terror and the carnage of the Bolshevik takeover and imposition of communism in Russia followed similar scripts. The leaders responsible for these debacles were certainly not rational actors acting in the national interest.

The short history of Zionism and the revival of Jewish sovereignty and self-determination has been an exception. Leaders such as David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin recognized the limits of their rivalry. In 1948, Begin accepted the need for a single army under the control of the legitimate government of Israel in order to preserve the common core Zionist goals to which he and his followers were dedicated. And the leaders of both the secular and religious groups also found compromises to avoid rupturing the fabric of society.

But rational actors are very rare now, with the result that the conflict over disengagement is escalating out of control. Instead of serious public debate over the potential implications of different options and the limits of the conflict, the radicals, aided by gonzo journalists looking for good "stories," control the action.

In this emotionally charged framework, coherent discussion of the choices necessary for the common good - the survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state - is not even on the agenda.

For the anti-disengagement protesters, lucid discussion of the substantive questions, such as the security and political implications of withdrawal from Gaza, has been abandoned for foolish slogans. "Jews do not evict Jews" is designed to appeal to emotion, nothing more. The focus on tactics such as road closures avoids the core national questions related to the strategic consequences of either maintaining the presence of 8,000 Jews amid more than one million Palestinians, or closing this settlement effort after three decades.

Will the removal of the Israeli presence in Gaza and northern Samaria accelerate the demands for a return to the 1949 cease-fire lines and a renewal of the Arab effort to "push the Jews into sea?" Or will it strengthen Israel, internally as well as externally?

In the overheated environment of emotional slogans and violent protests these issues are not even recognized.

A DECADE ago, the proponents of the Oslo process, rather than examining the reality of continued Palestinian rejectionism, were also enraptured by emotional slogans such as "Peace Now." The results, predictably, were disastrous, including the internal divisions highlighted by the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and mass terrorism from the outside.

Now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bungled campaign and failure to articulate the case for disengagement has deprived this process of the legitimacy necessary to avoid civil conflict. But his opponents have also failed to articulate a coherent national vision and seem incapable of the decisions demanded of rational actors. No one has come up with a realistic alternative to disengagement - other than a na ve assumption that the status quo is inherently better than change.

The problem goes much deeper than the irrationality of the public debate, which is being managed by publicists who sell soap and cereal between political campaigns. Israel, like many other democracies, is in a deep leadership crisis with none of the major parties having put up candidates who can inspire and unify the nation.

Sharon, who led the nation successfully through the recent Palestinian terror war, remains in power by default, and the same situation has allowed Shimon Peres to cling to power in Labor.

The religious and cultural leaders - rabbis and their secular counterparts - are no better. The few rational voices, such as former chief rabbi Yisrael Lau, as well as his nephew, Rabbi Benny Lau, are being drowned out by others who claim to speak for God and have forgotten the lessons of previous Jewish catastrophes. Soldiers have been taught to follow the rulings of "spiritual leaders" rather than to act on the basis of the common goal of national survival.

As a result, instead of focusing on the core question of whether disengagement will improve or exacerbate Israel's condition and assessing the alternatives, the public debate is dominated by emotions and na ve slogans.

Perhaps, as the disengagement gets closer, the rational actors will return to the stage; but the time for avoiding another self-inflicted catastrophe is running out.

The writer directs the Program on Conflict Management at Bar Ilan University and edits NGO Monitor (www.ngo-monitor.org).