{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026078234704112337, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020060180541624874, 'mean_word_length': 4.976047904191617, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Risk Attitude, Punishment, and the Intifada

The Israelis occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for approximately twenty years without facing an uprising. This state of affairs ended, surprising both the Israelis and the PLO, in December 1987 with the beginning of the Intifada. Various authors conclude that the Israeli occupation policy caused the Intifada (Peretz 1990; Nassar and Heacock 1990; Siniora 1988; U.S. Department of State 1989). This paper takes exception with the foregoing view. This paper offers a rational actor explanation of why the occupation policy was adopted, why the occupation policy deterred an uprising for twenty years, and why the change from the occupation policy to the Iron Fist policy caused the Intifada. In particular, the key to the explanation is the change, which came with the Iron Fist policy, in the likelihood of punishing non-participants. This change, and not the occupation policy, made participation in acts of insurrection the preferred option.