Or, let’s apply boundary analysis to The Holy Land
In the realm of engineering, we often tackle complex systems by identifying their fundamental principles, understanding systemic behaviours, and reframing the challenge. As you would know from my prior writing – these are the three core attributes of the global engineer.
Also, by exploring how these three attributes can be used to solve non-engineering problems, we can sometimes better understand their application – analogies are good like that.
This will be the first article where we do this. And I thought I might as well go all in with something both timely and controversial. So let's apply global engineering expertise to a longstanding and deeply entrenched geopolitical issue: the Israel–Palestine conflict.
First Principles: Understanding Human Behaviour
One of the first principles to acknowledge is the inherent human tendency towards in-group preference and out-group suspicion. Evolutionary psychology suggests that such behaviours may have been advantageous for early human survival, leading to a natural predisposition towards xenophobia. This predisposition can manifest in societies as a persistent undercurrent of tension between different groups.
Moreover, history has shown that leaders can exploit these tendencies, amplifying fear and hostility towards 'the other' to consolidate power and unify their base. This manipulation often leads to increased conflict, as fear becomes a tool for political gain.
Systemic Thinking: The Dynamics of Conflict
From a systems perspective, the Israel–Palestine conflict is not merely a series of isolated incidents but a complex interplay of historical grievances, cultural differences, and political interests. Within any large population, there will always be individuals or factions inclined towards aggression or retaliation. This reality creates a feedback loop where acts of violence beget further violence, perpetuating the cycle of conflict.
Additionally, the international community, particularly the United States, provides substantial financial and military support to Israel and Palestinians. This support is often justified as a means to promote stability and peace in the region. However, without mechanisms to ensure that this aid contributes to reducing conflict, it can inadvertently sustain the status quo.
Reframing the Problem: Shifting Focus from Sides to Systems
Traditional approaches to the conflict often involve taking sides or attempting to assign blame. You have probably found you naturally do that yourself – asking which side it right. However, this framing has proven ineffective in achieving lasting peace. Instead, we can reframe the problem by focusing on creating systems that incentivize peaceful behaviour, regardless of the underlying political or ideological differences. You don’t need to choose a side, you just focus on helping people have a better life.
Engineering a Solution: Applying Control Theory
Control theory, a fundamental concept in engineering, involves designing systems that maintain desired outputs despite external disturbances. Applying this to the Israel–Palestine conflict, we can conceptualize a feedback mechanism where international aid is contingent upon the level of peace maintained in the region.
For instance, a predetermined amount of aid, say the amount given in 2024, could be pledged annually, adjusted for inflation. However, any acts of aggression or escalation of conflict would result in a proportional reduction of this aid. This negative feedback loop would create a tangible incentive for all parties to minimize conflict, as continued aggression would directly impact the resources available to them. Governments especially would be motivated to ensure these funds continue to flow in so they can keep taxes low while still providing services.
Such a system would also empower moderate voices advocating for peace, as they could point to the direct consequences of conflict on their community's well-being. It shifts the focus from ideological victories to practical outcomes, aligning incentives with the desired state of peace.
The Political Engineer vs the Political Scientist
In my book, I compare engineers with other professionals. One comparison was with scientists and the use of boundary analysis common in engineering textbooks, but often absent in scientific textbooks – even when the basic topic is the same. While scientists are, almost by definition, focused on why a system works, engineers are happy to understand how it works so they can move onto the next step to implement what they are working on. In this case, we don’t care about the specific action the people will take to ensure peace, we simply care that they will take action of some sort and keep trying until they find it. The scientific question can be answered after the engineering solution is implemented.
Conclusion: Engineering Peace Through Systemic Incentives
While the Israel–Palestine conflict is deeply complex, applying engineering principles like control theory offers a novel perspective. By designing systems that align incentives with peaceful behaviour, we can create environments where cooperation becomes more beneficial than conflict. This approach doesn't solve all underlying issues but provides a framework for reducing violence and promoting stability.
Disclaimer and request
Because you are likely an erudite reader (and if you don’t know what that means, then look it up – you will laugh when you read the meaning and think about how I assumed the word described you) you have potentially noted that this is a lot like an idea put by Edward de Bono (not the marmite idea). This is true – I have reverse engineered his idea and expanded upon it.
If you think of any other non-engineering topics you would like to see given engineering attention, then let me know. We can even thrash out a solution together. 

We think it shouldn’t; engineering should be governed by fact. But you have probably still encountered times when decisions, once made, seemed to be more politically founded than factually founded.
 
Why is that?
 
I am going to answer this question right now. It will be based on my experience, but informed by all the theory on engineering practice that I covered in my book. You can listen to a 10 minute summary of it here if you want a quick review of the main points – and get some context from what I am about to write next.
 
Attachment
 
The first big driver for politically founded decisions in engineering is attachment. That’s where someone simply likes an idea (often their own) more than others. It is this emotional motivation that drives them to champion an idea in a political manner.
 
Recall that attachment is like a form of fixation, but fixation is usually more cognitive: you just have an unconscious assumption in your mind, and it can only be undone when someone points it out. Once someone does point it out, you usually feel a sense of opportunity and creativity coming from the new perspective. But this is not so with attachment: because emotions are involved, people will become irrational – and political.
 
Therefore, to stop politics in engineering, you need to remind everyone (maybe yourself) about the importance of things like data, first principles and trials. Better yet, don’t let these be forgotten in the first place. When there are plenty of results from physical testing, calculation, simulations, analyses and so on from the onset, the information can either mitigate a person’s emotional tendencies or provide the solid basis others need to challenge someone else’s emotionally based notions pragmatically.
 
What stops people considering only the important facts?
 
Lack of shared situational awareness
 
I have seen times when the ultimate culprit was a lack of shared situational awareness. This is especially so when a person in a senior level does not have complete understanding of the issues at hand. They will then make decisions based on what they think are their amazing insights – AKA ideas formed in a state of ignorance. Given how “amazing” these ideas are, they naturally expect others to implement them straight away, and then expect to see results within a week. Others, who know the flaws in these ideas, but do not have the data on hand to support them, often then find they can offer only an opinion. As well informed as this opinion is, it is, until data is at hand, only an opinion. It then becomes a battle of seniority and rhetoric to see which idea comes out on top i.e. politics.
 
To confront this issue, you can put the effort into creating a document that summarises all key information. It might be a briefing document for a meeting, or it might be an ongoing log that all involved people are alerted to each time it is updated. The important thing is that people will review the content prior to formulating their ideas and putting them forward. Ensure that the document has the following:

• The context of the challenge so people can understand systemic issues and the goal
• Any analysis that has been conducted (numerical or analytical)
• Any test results from physical testing
• Records of all prior meetings on the topic
• Items that remain unresolved – this could be a risk registry

 
Then ensure that, before anyone starts giving opinions, they have been given ample time to go over this document.
 
The assumed need for an immediate solution
 
Another cause of attachment overriding fact-based thinking is the assumed notion that the final idea to be implemented must be identified straight away. Think about a time when you were in a meeting (formal or informal) discussing the solution to a problem and it was assumed that only one idea could be selected at the end of the meeting and that idea was the one that would be implemented. It’s likely not that hard. In fact, you have probably now realised that most meetings you have to come up with a solution to a problem are like this.
 
Make it a goal not come up with the idea that will be implemented, but to come up with a collection of ideas (not too many) to be evaluated further. The best one being selected later. This encourages the perspective that all ideas are selected based on facts – because they are tested further to collect evidence. Also, if there is any remaining attachment, then at least there is a greater chance, after this initial meeting/conversation, for anyone’s idea to be selected – and the motivation to push politically for an idea is reduced.
 
A general lack of first principles
 
The above points have likely implied the importance of first principles. Indeed, simply ensuring people always consider first principles from the onset, will help them become more objective.
 
An informal selection process
You have likely heard of a selection matrix. Where each option is rated against others along criteria that have been developed earlier for the respective problem. The option that rates the highest is the on that should be chosen.
 
When you use such an approach, people can no longer lobby (politic) for an idea as easily. Instead, all are involved in a more disciplined approach to select the preferred option.
 
Note, this is not simply for ideas to solve engineering challenges. It can be used for almost anything, and is the basic approach Daniel Kahneman proposed for selecting new employees.
 
A lack of evolution
 
A formal selection process can also encourage evolution. In The Global Engineer, I talk about coevolution being a major part of engineering – where our understanding of the problem evolves as we evolve the solution. This phenomenon, when accepted and then leveraged, can also help reduce politics in engineering.
 
If an option, after being put through a selection matrix does not come out on top, or, even if it does, but it has some weaknesses against some criteria, then there is an opportunity (if not an obligation) to evolve the design. This would focus on better satisfying the criteria with lower scores.
 
When you do this, two things happen:

1. The solution selected, which might not be the one that first came out on top, will be even better.
2. Each option will have had input (ideas) from others as they think of ways to improve it. This means each idea now has multiple “owners”, and that means it is less likely that one person will have only one option they are attached too – thus less need for politicking.

 
 
 
All of the above comes back to the way engineering problems are viewed and solved in a company. That in turn comes back to culture. If you are in a position to change the culture by mandating practices like that above, then the responsibility is yours. If you work for a company or manger that does not follow such pragmatic procedures for decision making, and politicking has become the norm, then it is probably time to find another place to work – you are unlikely to learn much in your current role and you are unlikely to be having a good time.