http://israeldefender.com/?p=1492
Plus comments and thoughts from other blogs
Two men--let us call them Rick and Steve-- are put in a small room containing a suitcase filled with bills totaling $100,000. The owner of the suitcase announces the following:
"I will give you the money in the suitcase under one condition...you have to negotiate an agreement on how to divide it. That is the only way I will agree to give you the money."
Rick is a rational person and realizes the golden opportunity that has fallen his way. He turns to Steve with the obvious suggestion: "You take half and I'll take half, that way each of us will have $50,000."
To his surprise, Steve frowns at him and says, in a tone that leaves no room for doubt: "Look here, I don't know what your plans are for the money, but I don't intend to leave this room with less than $90,000. If you accept that, fine. If not, we can both go home without any of the money."
Rick can hardly believe his ears. "What has happened to Steve" he asks himself. "Why should he get 90% of the money and I just 10%?" He decides to try to convince Steve to accept his view. "Let's be logical," he urges him, "We are in the same situation, we both want the money. Let's divide the money equally and both of us will profit."
Steve, however, doesn't seem perturbed by his friend's logic. He listens attentively, but when Rick is finished he says, even more emphatically than before: "90-10 or nothing. That is my last offer."
Rick's face turns red with anger. He is about to punch Steve in the nose, but he steps back. He realizes that Steve is not going to relent, and that the only way he can leave the room with any money is to give in to him. He straightens his clothes, takes $10,000 from the suitcase, shakes Steve's hand and leaves the room humiliated.
This case is called 'The Blackmailer's Paradox" in game theory. The paradox is that Rick the rational is forced to behave irrationally by definition, in order to achieve maximum results in the face of the situation that has evolved. What brings about this bizarre outcome is the fact Steve is sure of himself and doesn't flinch when making his exorbitant demand. This convinces Rick that he must give in so as to make the best of the situation.
--------------------------------------------------
The Arab-Israeli Conflict
The relationship between Israel and the Arab countries is conducted along the lines of this paradox. At each stage of negotiation, the Arabs present impossible, unacceptable starting positions. They act sure of themselves and as if they totally believe in what they are asking for, and make it clear to Israel that there is no chance of their backing down.
Invariably, Israel agrees to their blackmailing demands because otherwise she will leave the room empty handed. The most blatant example of this is the negotiations with Syria that have been taking place with different levels of negotiators for years. The Syrians made sure that it was clear from the beginning that they would not compromise on one millimeter of the Golan Heights.
The Israeli side, eager to have a peace agreement with Syria, internalized the Syrian position so well, that the Israeli public is sure that the starting point for future negotiations with Syria has to include complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights, this despite its critical strategic importance in ensuring secure borders for Israel.
The Losing Solution
According to game theory, Israel has to change certain basic perceptions in order to improve her chances in the negotiations game with the Arabs and win the long term political struggle:
a. Willingness to forego agreements
Israel’s political stand is based on the principle that agreements must be reached with the Arabs at any price, that the lack of agreements is untenable. In the Blackmailer’s Paradox, Rick’s behavior is the result of his feeling that he must leave the room with some money, no matter how little. Because Rick cannot imagine himself leaving the room with empty hands, he is easy prey for Steve, and ends up leaving with a certain amount of money, but in the role of the humiliated loser. This is similar to the way Israel handles negotiations, her mental state making her unable to reject suggestions that do not advance her interests.
b. Taking repetition into account
Game theory relates to onetime situations differently than to situations that repeat themselves. A situation that repeats itself over any length of time, creates, paradoxically, strategic parity that leads to cooperation between the opposing sides. This cooperation occurs when both sides realize that the game is going to repeat itself, and that since they must weigh the influence present moves will have on future games, there is a balancing factor at play.
Rick saw his problem as a onetime event, and behaved accordingly. Had he told Steve instead that he would not forego the amount he deserves even if he sustains a total loss, he would have changed the game results for an indefinite period. It is probably true that he would still have left the game empty handed, but at the next meeting with Steve, the latter would remember Rick’s original suggestion and would try to reach a compromise.
That is how Israel has to behave, looking at the long term in order to improve her position in future negotiations, even if it means continuing a state of war and fore going an agreement.
c. Faith in your opinions
Another element that crates the “Blackmailer’s Paradox” is the unwavering belief of one side in its opinion. Steve exemplifies that. This faith gives a contender inner confidence in his cause at the start and eventually convinces his rival as well. The result is that the opposing side wants to reach an agreement, even at the expense of irrational surrender that is considerably distanced from his opening position.
Several years ago, I spoke to a senior officer who claimed that Israel must withdraw from the Golan Heights in the framework of a peace treaty, because the Golan is holy land to the Syrians and they will never give it up. I explained to him that first the Syrians convinced themselves that the Golan is holy land to them, and then proceeded to convince you as well. The Syrians’ unflinching belief that they are in the right convinces us to give in to their dictates. The only solution to that is for us to believe unwaveringly in the righteousness of our cause. Only complete faith in our demands can succeed in convincing our Syrian opponent to take our opinion into account.
As in all of science, game theory does not take sides in moral and value judgments. It analyzes strategically the behavior of opposing sides in a game they play against one another. The State of Israel is in the midst of one such game opposite its enemies. As in every game, the Arab-Israeli game involves interests that create the framework of the game and its rules.
Sadly, Israel ignores the basic principles of game theory. If Israel would be wise enough to behave according to those principles, her political status and de facto, her security status, would improve substantially.
Copyright Yisrael Aumann
--------------------------------------------
classicus | October 23, 2010 10:51 AM | Reply
Rick's answer to Steve is: "I'll take the deal, but you owe me 40,000 and since you don't want to give me the cash, I'll take one of your thieving hands as payment. Negotiate like a Muslim, therefore pay like a Muslim. No severed hand, no deal. See you next you next time then."
Paraphrasing Mr. Spock (Star Trek episode with the 'bad' children):
The easiest way for evil to control others is to prey on the innocent. The easiest way to control evil is to give them nothing.--------------------------------
Battle_of_Tours | October 23, 2010 1:13 PM | Reply
Moral? Neither side gets anything except as already gotten, until there really is negotiation (not extortion)... 50-50 or nothing.
---------------------------------
ashland | October 23, 2010 1:50 PM | Reply
Extortion only works if you play by the blackmailer' rules.
Bibi tried it but got the logic wrong when he told the PLO he would continue to hold on construction if the PLO would acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish State.
What if he had agreed to a halt of all construction in the disputed territories, with the emphasis on ALL. Reframe it: "We will stop our construction, but only if you stop ALL your construction in Gaza and the West Bank." Add the hammer for motivation: "Otherwise we will increase the pace of our construction."
It becomes a very reasonable proposition: you want us to stop construction then you do the same - its called reciprocity.
Reciprocity should be the catchword in all Israeli responses: prisoner exchange? = one-for-one; No Jews in muslin territory? = no muslins in Jewish territory.
A wise negotiator teaches one to say: "I care, but not that much".
Not sure how the concept of "reciprocity" fits into game theory but it seems like a needed game changer to me. Shift the motivation onto the recalcitrant. It also addresses the impact of outside third parties on the negotiations by being eminently reasonable in the face of outrageous demands. "Hey, all we want you to do is what you ask of us..."
The bluster from the PLO is intended to mask their position of weakness. Who is more uncomfortable with the status quo?
---------------------------------------------
Abu_Lahab | October 23, 2010 1:57 PM | Reply
Damn it! Try again:
Sounds like Steve has the same delusions of adequacy that plague our cultist friends.
If I'm Rick I'll assess how likely I am to be able to deal with Steve's perceived hostility and prepare myself to defend my 50%. If I successfully defend my 50% I will take Steve's 50% as compensation for Steve's pissy attitude. It may also be wise to take Steve's life at that point too given how unstable he appears to be.
But then I'm old fashioned.....and it is just a game, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
captain nemo replied to comment from Abu_Lahab
October 23, 2010 2:54 PM
Reply
this is one mistake that israel did, by not declaring immediately post june 10 1967 that
1. it is defining its borders to be from the golan heights till sharm el sheikh.
2. as over 700,000 jews were expelled, fled, with only their clothes on their back and having had all their properties confiscated in the muslime countries from where they have fled, in kind, there will be a population transfer to jordan (which was supposed to be part of the jewish home as well as per lord balfour...1917...but out of sheer generosity let these people go to little hussie's kingdom and live there happily everafter
3. a statement to the un to go ffffly a kite (un 'peace keepers'...spit!!! nasser is screaming that he intends to drive all the jews into the sea, he is closing the tiran straights, is positioning armored brigades along the border with israel, asks u-thant to order the 'peace keepers to leave.... and they leave!!!)
4. it is still not too late to do that.
sinai was given back...oh well
israel pulled out of gaza.... a painful eye opener....
but the rest.
golan heights - no way
judea and samaria - no way!
jerusalem -N O F R I G G I N' W A Y !!!!
this should be bibi's good bye present to hussein sotero
(he WILL be kicked out of the w.h. ...... right?)
---------------------------------------------
Bipolar Izlamic Incompoop | October 23, 2010 6:13 PM | Reply
WRONG !
The izlamic side demands ALL of the money, all of your land and you and your family to be either slaves or dead.
In return you get nothing but more grief.
There is no such thing as good faith negociation between a mohamedon and a kafir.
" As long as this accursed book (the koran) exists, there will never be peace"
....William Gladstone, greatest Britsh PM of the 19th century.
" The Hun (read: mohamedon) is either at your feet or at your throat"
.....Winston Churchill, greatest British PM of the 20th century
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
classicus
October 23, 2010 9:27 PM
Reply
Well obviously the correct answer is that Steve should be dressed down for "offering," anything because he doesn't own the money. But an equally irrational approach on Rick's part may shock Steve to the realization that he cannot bully others. Of course, Rick must be prepared to carry through on anything that he says.
Incidently, Martin van Creveld has written an interesting book about how this plays out in the world of asymmetric warfare. The title is: The Transformation of War. In that world, the coercive element becomes an argumentum ad misericordium writ large, covering of course, an arguementum ad baculum. And that's where Israel is now.
Rick's first mistake was to make the first move.
Goob
October 23, 2010 10:14 PM
Reply
"... I don't intend to leave this room with less than $90,000... "
Well alrighty then, I guess you are leaving the room with $0. Too bad! Heh. Zero is quite a bit less than $90,000 -- have fun with it.
Unless of course, you agree to take $5,000, because the only way I'm agreeing to share this money with you is I get $95,000....
Can't two play at that game? Let's be reasonable.
dumbledoresarmy
October 23, 2010 10:59 PM
Reply
Something that people may find interesting.
Another take on 'game theory', written in May 2007, by an anonymous blogger - but none the worse for all that.
The whole thing is of interest to everyone in the counter-jihad movement.
At the core of it is a discussion of the 'prisoner's dilemma', and what works best, if the game has to be repeated multiple times.
http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2007/05/21/you-are-not-alone-part-1/
Podcast
October 23, 2010 11:01 PM
Reply
If Israel would be wise enough to behave according to those principles, her political status and de facto, her security status, would improve substantially.
Perhaps if this was only a conflict between Arabs and Israelis as the writer naively defines it, but it’s not, it is a jihad of conquest being waged against Israel by Dar al Islam, and like all jihads being waged by Dar al Islam against infidels it is permanent. Hence, no peace is possible. Indeed, no matter how suicidal the concessions that Israel caves into, all it will do is further embolden Dar al Islam. That’s the problem: Israelis don’t want to accept the reality that the jihad being waged against it is permanent.
classicus replied to comment from Podcast
October 23, 2010 11:11 PM
Reply
Yes, for certain jihadists fighting is winning. But I don't know what the more apocalyptic ones are up to. They don't seem to be fighting for a separate space but to dominate every space. Still others in the jihad are attempting to move in by immigration and convert everybody. A very tough problem.
Sanjay_111
October 23, 2010 11:46 PM
Reply
The answer to blackmailer's paradox is very simple - not having any money has gives much less pain to "irrational" Steve than to "rational" Rick. That is why Steve is able to get more dollars than Rick, because after all, dollars have much less value for Steve than for Rick.
Once you adjust the equation for how much value money has for each person, you will easily understand why one person gets out of the room with 1/9th that of the other person.
The experiment is an extremely useful way of capturing what happens between Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere in the world. It is in this context that we can see more clearly Osama's statement - we value death and you value life. Muslims are willing to go through any hardship simply to be able to subjugate and humiliate non-Muslims. Non-muslims need to understand this mindset and be willing, at some point, to go through hardship themselves in order to overpower Muslims.
I too used to wonder - Pakistan is a much smaller and weaker country, then why is it able to get away with all sorts of crimes against India. The answer is simple and the experiment captures it well - Pakistan places much less value on the lives that will be lost in a nuclear exchange, than does India. If both countries put equal value on the lives of people (their own as well as the civilians on the other side), Pakistan would not dare to use terror attacks as it's national policy.
We just have to wait for the day when non - Muslism will call Muslims' bluff and convince them that we too are willing for violence to sort out problems. And human nature is such that it will happen one day. If the same experiment is done repeatedly involving the same persons, then after a few instances, Rick is sure to tell Steve - go to hell, I am getting out this time without any money. That is when Steve will share the money equally.
Sanjay
Jimmy Bones
October 24, 2010 1:42 AM
Reply
Old Mo himself set the original example for Muslim treaties: break them when you are ready to attack.
Israel should expect no more.
Kafir Harby replied to comment from Canto28
October 24, 2010 2:20 AM
Reply
I fully agree!
carpediadem
October 24, 2010 3:09 AM
Reply
I have seen this game theory article before, and oddly enough, someone has written about it in terms of the Israelis using it to manipulate the Palis!
The main difference betwqeen the "rational" guy and the "irrational" guy is very simple. the rational guy is think about being fair, and dividing the wealth between him and the other guy because he is a "civilised" person, ie used to considering all parties in terms of equality and sharing.
The so-called "irrational" guy is a selfish guy who wants what he wants, irrespective of the needs and desires of the other person or parties involved.
The reason i have put the words "rational" and "irrational"
in quote marks is that the war between Islam and the West (and between Israel and the Arabs, currently truncated in rhetorical terms to the "Palestinians") seems to be assessed in terms describing rationality rather than emotions.
many commentators remark that it is not rational for the palis/Arabs to push for what they can't get etc etc.
This is frankly nonsense. The entire situation is a turf war between arab gangsters and a bunch of people (Israelis) who just want to live in peace. Arabs attack, Israelis withdraw, except when incredibly provoked. The Arabs, thinking and acting like ants, sacrificing their young, their women, etc to the cause of domination will probably win eventually, not just because they act like ants who don't care about the people they sacrifice, but because their narcissistic fervour, their oil deals and their campaigning have secured them support from a world that is largely indifferent to the fate/deaths/demise of Jews and the Israeli state.
And, as we see, this betrayal of Israel by the world is costing them dearly because the Arab Islamic predators are happily feasting on and massacring Christians in the Middle East and Indonesia, etc, Africans and Westerners.
When you bargain with gangsters this is what happens.
The trouble is, a turf war, or the drive for domiantion is not a "rational" drive, it is emotional. The terms by which it is negotiated are rational ie given their own rationale.
For example,the EU decided without hesitation to fall in with the Arabs demand to stop supporting Israel so they could get cheap oil and access to Arab markets ie for personal gain.
They thereby agreed to spread and adopt the Arab world-view ie Israel bad, Israel should die and give its land to Arabs/Islam and make the palis the focal point of all antiIsraqel rhetoric. it's the best scam in the world becaseu it's based on strategic self-interest plus blackmail (ie no oilof ryou if you support those Jews!)
The EU acted with greed and emotion, and later rationalised its decision -first by acceding to the dictated terms of the Euro Arab dialogue -ie disseminating Israel's "badness" via EU media, universities, cultural institutions etc which was a means of talking itself into believing that Israel is "bad" because the Palis want something the Israelis won't give them - ie Israel's own country.
People generally go along with the selfish bully and then rationalise their not liking the considerate type. It can be a convoluted game, but it basically comes down to the force of personality. The Arabs by pushing pushing pushing are exerting their personality in a positive ie assertive, forceful, bullying way.Th
Plus, you know, all that Jew-hatred. Not suffered by those with actual self-respect because they are secure in themselves, but those who do not have it, or who are natural bullies, like some of those in Whitehall - well, it's just an opportunity for them to flex their bureaucratic, institutionalised hatred.
And when Israel does simply say to the Arabs "nope, this land is ours", the Jewhaters pull them back and make them kowtow to the Arabs.
In women's magazines these types are referred to as "frenemies" - people who pretend to care about you but always deliberately undermine you.
So, not to stray TOO far from the topic, referring to the game theory problem as strictly involving the "rational/logical" versus the "irrational/illogical" is to my mind ignoring some fundamental features of the Islamic human - to dominate, not negotiate.
It is logical to us to share, because we recognise that both parties have rights and each party is important.
The Arabs/Islam do not negotiate under this premise, because in their minds they are the only ones who count, regardless of how many people are in the world or in a transaction.
This may seem "illogical" to us, but they are absolutely selfish and all their tactics spring from that.
Their only interest in negotiating is how to take over not how to share.
carpediadem
October 24, 2010 3:11 AM
Reply
Apologies for length - i could have done my piece more concisely, i guess, but brain is currently at half-mast.
carpediadem
October 24, 2010 3:38 AM
Reply
One more comment re the problem propounded above. i disagree that Rick is rational. Rick is unselfish and therefore uses rational means to assess what would be fair in the circumstances, ignoring the facts on the ground of Steve's unequivocal selfishness and demands.
Steve is selfish and has determined what he wants. His emotional force determines the outcome of this particular transaction.
Rick is actually acting irrationally in the circumstances (but totally in line with his own inclinations and within the rules of the situation.)he has not recognised that despite the initial rule-setting, once the rule-setter leaves the room, the rules ahve changed. What he should have done is called Steve's bluff, the only way to even hope to get vague equality in such a setting.
The only reason Rick gets so little is because he wants a share but wants Steve to agree.
The other factor is that there is a third party setting the terms involved in this problem. If the battle for the money were strictly between Rick and Steve, both could act unilaterally and the money would go to the best fighter.
But since agreements and terms involve everyone, Rick takes all the factors into consideration whereas Steve simply acts for himself.
This dilemma is actually a perfect example of a dispute between a thinker and feeler in Myers Briggs terms.
One acts in accordance with the rules/stated objectives, the other acts only according to his feelings. Feelers tend not to give a stuff about stated rules and suchlike, because that is not how they process the world.
Just some additional thoughts.
Eastview replied to comment from carpediadem
October 24, 2010 4:17 AM
Reply
"This dilemma is actually a perfect example of a dispute between a thinker and feeler in Myers Briggs terms.
"One acts in accordance with the rules/stated objectives, the other acts only according to his feelings. Feelers tend not to give a stuff about stated rules and suchlike, because that is not how they process the world."
Very good observation.
Abisja
October 24, 2010 5:13 AM
Reply
Israel does not have to negotiate anything with anyone: 1. The Golan - NOTHING to negotiate. 2. Jerusalem the eternal capitol of Israel - NOTHING to negotiate. 3. Israel should not have given up any of its "conquered"(it is their land from eternity past)land in the first place. If the Muslim Nations don't like it, they can stuff their pipes with camel droppings and smoke it. It is about time that the so called "free world" wake up - enough is enough! They are feeling it on their own skin only as much as they allowed it to be dictated to them in the first place. Making Israel the culprit won't make the "PROBLEM"(read the Muslim take over of Western Civilization), go away. SO, WAKE UP YOU COWARDS!
pathfinder58
October 24, 2010 1:25 PM
Reply
American presidents have salivated for the opportunity to "resolve" the Arab/Israeli conflict, bringing extra-ordinary pressure on Isreal to come to some sort of agreement. We know Syria won't compromise.
My own comparison: Syria is a cat, and you can't train a cat very well so you don't bother. Isreal is a dog, so you leash it and demand certain behaviors, because you can.
America needs to take a lesson here. We need to silently support Israel, and allow them to walk away from the negotiating table with nothing, if we ever want them come to a fair agreement.
pathfinder58
October 24, 2010 1:27 PM
Reply
Israel (sp) Sorry. I little dislexic!
butterfly
October 25, 2010 4:31 PM
Reply
DDA, Thanks for the link. It’s a keeper, and a sender. The “remnant” concept leaves me with hope for the West’s culture.
This game theory stuff is a little too deep for me but I like games and this one is very interesting. The problem with social mathematics is the structure of the equation, the weight given to each variable, and where those variables are placed within the equation. I realize the setup above is simply a way to study one specifically defined social interaction, and it does it well, but the Israeli/Arab conflict is not a simple planar matrix. It’s more three dimensional, with intersecting geometry. Equations don’t create themselves, people write them, and unless those people are all knowing it will contain errors and bias. This particular game’s setup bothers me in that the ‘owner of the suitcase’ seems to have no stake in the outcome, which brings me back to your link. Wouldn’t the ‘owner of the suitcase’ prefer to have his money go to a culture with at least the possibility of remnants within it? Rather than knowingly throw it away on one that doesn’t?
I keep going back to the ‘owner of the suitcase’ in the context of the Israeli conflict too. Why did he put it on the table? What was the equation wherein the ‘owner of the suitcase’ felt he must pit good people against bad, with the possibility of abandoning positive remnants completely? World leaders (suitcase owners) keep demanding Israel and Arabs negotiate, but the suitcases they present to Israel are full of falsehoods, unreasonable conditions, and ignorance. Of course we know there is bias, but what is its weight and where is it placed? It would be really neat to see the whole multi-dimensional Israeli/Arab social equation presented by a top notch game theorist.
Spartan replied to comment from Cuda
October 27, 2010 7:46 PM
Reply
I like your solution. In terms of the situation Israel faces, Israel should say, "Take Gaza only or all will be part of Israel." Then take it all by force if the Arabs refuse. My bloodthirsty rational is: if you are going to be killed anyway, you may as well die fighting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
More comments from another blog
lakshmi Says:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:30 am
Excellent article, you nailed it on Israel. And I appreciate the example of game theory-it is instructive whenever two people(s) enter into some dispute and negotiation.
Paul Kersey Says:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:50 am
Yes, this seems to describe Reagan and Thatchers’ strategy against the Soviet Union, as well. Isn’t this similar to something called Brinkmanship?
Fascinante: El Premio Nobel por “La teoría de los juegos” analiza la Yijad contra Israel « NUEVA EUROPA- Nueva Eurabia Says:
October 23rd, 2010 at 4:18 pm
[...] Israel’s Conflict as Game Theory [...]
Barrett Kalellis Says:
October 23rd, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Seems only like common sense — belief in the rightness of one’s own opinions. It’s too bad that most politicians are unable to stand on principle and continually look for the chimera of compromise.
einat Says:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:53 pm
The problem is that Israel BELIEF IN THE RIGHTNESS OF HER OPINION in the need of peace at any cost. Because of this view the people leeding it convince themself of the less value of other issues and since they have to convince the Israely public they invent all kind of unrealistic arguments and excuses which by themself increase their trust on their way.
ObamaYoMoma Says:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:58 pm
If Israel would be wise enough to behave according to those principles, her political status and de facto, her security status, would improve substantially.
Perhaps if this was only a conflict between Arabs and Israelis as the writer naively defines it, but it’s not, it is a jihad of conquest being waged against Israel by Dar al Islam, and like all jihads being waged by Dar al Islam against infidels it is permanent. Hence, no peace is possible. Indeed, no matter how suicidal the concessions that Israel caves into, all it will do is further embolden Dar al Islam. That’s the problem: Israelis don’t want to accept the reality that the jihad being waged against it is permanent.
Danny Says:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:31 am
Obama you are exactly right. I wish the world would understand this simple fact
AntiOnan Says:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:40 am
What is rather appropriate, is that you can extend the “game” allusion even further to the fact that, like in many sports, it isn’t the aggressor who is punished, but the victim who finally decides to retaliate after no little provocation.
Ralgood Says:
October 24th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Something in this bothers me. If, as Mr. Aumann writes:
“The Israeli side, eager to have a peace agreement with Syria, internalized the Syrian position so well, that the Israeli public is sure that the starting point for future negotiations with Syria has to include complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights, this despite its critical strategic importance in ensuring secure borders for Israel. “
why would Israel give up the Golan Heights if doing so no longer provides it with secure borders????
jock Says:
October 24th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Ralgood,
You are quite right and indeed Aumann is making your point too. Jock
Andrew Says:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
So, The Suitcase with $100k is the equivalent of the Golan and the occupied Palestinian Lands? 50:50 you suggest is rational? So to you Rick is potentially Israel if it does not change its behavior, would otherwise lose 90% of the lands it occupies to Steve’s equiavalent: the Palestinians and Syria?
Is this quality of reasoning the Noble Prize Kind or has your Jewish Zeal taken the best of your analysis?
pathfinder58 Says:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
First, I must comment that Prof. Aumann’s comparison between border negotiations and game theory is breathtaking in its simplicity and lucidity. Thank you professor!
Any woman negotiating a deal on a knock-off designer purse at a state fair understands this principle. You can never get a fair deal, unless you walk away… The western world needs to support and trust Isreal, even if they must walk away from the negotiating table with nothing.
Wm Hausman Says:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Obamayomoma is correct and he has the history of dar al-Islam to substantiate his assertion, i.e., that the Islamic mindset is so rigidly impassioned with its rightness, it is hopelessly irrational. And they have 1400 years of un-wavering conviction, similar to the psychotic who will not give up his delusions regardless of overwhelming contrary evidence presented to him. But there’s another complicating factor here and that is Mr. Obama. No amount of contrary evidence, no amount of advice, and no amount of warning will dissuade him from trying castrate Israel (except maybe a significantly changed House of Representatives). Louis Farrankhan of Nations of Islam, and Jeremiah Wright are long time intimates and the second highest visitors to the White House. Enough said.
AntiOnan Says:
October 25th, 2010 at 1:53 am
If Israel’s leaders does NOT change their attitude and realise that there can never be a peace while Israel exists and probably while there is still one Jew left alive, then it will cease to exist, as they do NOT and never have, wanted peace. They only want the destruction of Israel.
Islam has had 1400 yrs, or so, of polishing its rhetoric, its strategy & its tactics (most of which were practised by more recent totalitarian states in Germany & Russia) and these have never changed since Muhammad died. While the majority sects of Islam still push for barbaric Sharia law implementation, Israel stands out as a beacon and the symbol of western virtue. While the Arabs have done nothing to alleviate the suffering of their own peoples, Israel turned deserts into orchards while threatened on all sides.
If Israel perishes so will the west and mankind’s greatest creation: the western state which despite its innate faults still feeds and subsidises much of the world
Dead Cats: 192 Hours, 10/25/10, (3)68 James Brody
Dead Cats & Clippings Says:
October 25th, 2010 at 7:42 am
[...] Economics in 2005 for his work on analyzing conflicts using game theory. This piece was posted at Israel Defender on October [...]
Yiftach Says:
October 26th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
@Andrew: No, no, and no. This isn’t a literal comparison, it’s a METAPHOR. I’m not sure if reading the piece again will help you, but please go ahead and read it again, and try to fathom the underpinnings of game theory and how Prof. Aumann very deftly uses them to relate his opinion of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Citizen Warrior Says:
October 29th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
ObamaYoMoma, you make an excellent point. I was reading an article by Barry Rubin called A Middle East Strategy for the West, when I read this sentence: “The problem is not just that cynical rulers (in the Middle East) mislead the masses through demagoguery — though that’s true; it’s that the masses embrace extremist world views.”
I had to do a doubletake. If the masses are embracing it, then it’s not extremist, right? It’s mainstream. By the term, “extremist world views” he is really saying “following classic, mainstream Islamic teachings.” But what a politically-correct, double-talk way of saying it!
Rubin did say something worthwhile in the article, however. He wrote: “Obtaining Israel-Palestinian or Arab-Israeli peace is a useless strategy, distracting from real issues. It isn’t going to happen; Islamists would use any such peace to portray those signing it as traitors; and even many Arab nationalists would denounce it to raise their credibility as tough, unyielding fighters. Violence and unrest would increase, not lessen, as a result.”
Absolutely. All this talk of “peace in the Middle East” is ridiculous. It’s not going to happen. EVER! Get over it. Muslims will not ever give up trying to “drive the Jews into the sea,” and the Israelis will not ever give up trying to survive. The world needs to embrace this reality and aim for something actually attainable: An Israeli population that is relatively safe from Jihadis.
I’m not a Jew, by the way. I don’t have any special attachment to the Jewish religion or Israel, except that it’s a democracy, and by far the best democracy in the Middle East. As Glen Reinsford wrote in his article Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict, “Perhaps the greatest of all ironies in the present-day Middle East, as David Horowitz has pointed out, is that Arab Israelis enjoy more social, legal and political freedom than do Arabs in any one of the fifty-three Muslim countries.” Ironic because so many Arabs are hell-bent on destroying Israel.
But Israel needs to embrace this reality too and quit bending over backwards to “make peace.” They keep being lured into making deals with the ruling Jihadis of the day in order to finally have “peace.” They should be able to look at their own history in the Middle East, or look at easily-obtained Islamic teachings and see that “peace agreements” with Jihadis are worse than a waste of time (for example, Qur’an 9:1-17).
One particular Islamic principle the Israelis might discover within fifteen minutes of perusing Islamic texts is that no peace agreements between Muslims and non-Muslims can last longer than ten years, and the only Islamic purpose for a peace agreement is to get the enemy to stop attacking Muslims while the Muslims regroup and strengthen their position, allowing them to take up the fight again at a time of their choice from a position of strength.
Conservababe Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Exploring the idea of variables:
Let’s say that Rick, the rational one, needs the money for medical care for his daughter. And let’s say he is a martial arts expert, while Steve is a 90-lb weakling. That changes things a bit.
Using that premise, all Rick has to do is say, “This is too important to quibble over. If you’re going to be irrational, I’ll just take the entire $100,000. You tell the man when he asks if we have come to an agreement that the answer is yes.”
Two things change the outcome of the argument in favor of the rational, rather than the irrational player: The absolute necessity to win and the willingness to use force that the other doesn’t have in order to control the outcome.
Israel, in the battle for its existence, has had the will in the past to use force to “control the argument.” The problem now is, Israel (and the U.S. in its proxy wars with Syria, Iran, Russa, etc.) might as well not have the strong militaries (the “marial arts training”) they possess because they are too afraid of world opinion or sanctions to use them.
Now maybe Rick is afraid that the man running the argument will see him as a bully and not see this as a genuine “agreement.” (Just as Israel — and the U.S. — face the world calling them imperialist war-mongers, unwilling to negotiate).
How important is the child’s life to Rick? If she’s dying, he will take the risk of being seen as a bully or worse. Likewise, if Israel (and the U.S — and other Western powers) face the fact that “their child” (Western civilization) is dying, they will ignore world opinion and do what they need to do.
Great Pro-Israel Links « News « israelstreet.org Says:
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:17 am
[...] Bones Elder of Ziyon Emet m’Tsiyon IDF Spokesperson Blog Isi Liebler–Candidly Speaking Israel Defender Israel Muse This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink. HOW CAN YOU FIGHT FOR [...]
No comments:
Post a Comment