Robert AUMAN: The Moment of Truth - ForumDaily
The article has been automatically translated into English by Google Translate from Russian and has not been edited.
Переклад цього матеріалу українською мовою з російської було автоматично здійснено сервісом Google Translate, без подальшого редагування тексту.
Bu məqalə Google Translate servisi vasitəsi ilə avtomatik olaraq rus dilindən azərbaycan dilinə tərcümə olunmuşdur. Bundan sonra mətn redaktə edilməmişdir.

Robert AUMAN: The Moment Of Truth

We offer our readers an article published in January 2011 of the year, but today it has not lost its relevance.

In 2005, the Nobel Prize in Economics (“For expanding understanding of conflict and cooperation through analysis within the framework of game theory”) was the eighth Israelite mathematician, professor of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, President of the Israeli Union of Mathematicians, Harvey Israel Robert John Auman Award.
A native of Germany, whose parents fled to America from the Nazi regime two weeks before Kristallnacht, Auman grew up in New York, graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and defended his doctoral dissertation there. In 1956, he repatriated to Israel, has since lived in Jerusalem and works at the Hebrew University.
Auman is an orthodox Jew and religious Zionist, the author of a number of halachic comments on the economic and legal aspects of the Talmud.
According to Professor Auman, conflicts of various levels and characteristics fit into certain mathematical models, ignoring which inevitably leads to a fiasco. “The results of various competitions and disputes between nations or countries can be subjected to mathematical analysis,” he said.
His technique has proven itself in politics. During the Cold War, Aumann was invited to act as a consultant to a US agency (arms control).
Professor Auman does not hide his concern about the future of our country. At the Herzliya Conference, he addressed the politicians, generals and diplomats who participated in the conference with a warning: “We mentioned two deadly threats to Israel connected with nuclear weapons: direct and indirect. But there is also a third threat, far more dangerous. It does not come from Iran, not from any terrorist groups, or even from outside. Its source is ourselves. The paradox is that Hamas’s policy is completely rational, while Israel’s policy is completely irrational. We lost landmarks and are in the grip of illusions. ” At the same time, according to the Nobel laureate, the “Russian” repatriates are more realistic than those born and raised in this country. “Lieberman’s words that we need to change the model of relations with the Palestinians, based on constant concessions, were received in the media with indignation. Nevertheless, he is right, ”said Auman.

- Professor, please explain how game theory is related to politics and state conflicts?
- Game theory is an analysis of the strategy in the relations of two interacting parties. These relationships can manifest themselves in a variety of qualities, from cooperation to conflict, and in various fields, from chess to business and wars between states. However, the model remains always the same. There is a set of rules that determine the development of conflict in the collision of two systems. There is also a set of certain techniques necessary in order to induce an opponent, an enemy, a competitor to take your position. Take a variety of conflicts, from local to global, and you will see that the models on which the opposition is built are the same. Religion, ideology, national character, etc., are of secondary importance.

- You wrote that war is not irrational. But at the heart of most conflicts, from the religious wars in the Middle Ages to the present, lies precisely irrational impulses.
- Speaking about the rational nature of any conflict, I do not mean impulses, but methods of achieving the goal. The goal can be completely irrational, the most innocuous, or the most monstrous. Someone may want to dance around the clock, and one may dream of throwing all the Jews into the sea. But both of them will inevitably depend on a partner, a competitor or an enemy and behave quite rationally - in such a way as to achieve the maximum, exposing themselves to the least risk. In a situation where the shahids want to destroy the Jews, it all depends on how much the Jews themselves agree with their desire. The behavior of the martyrs will depend on the reaction of the Jews and their methods of counteraction. If you abstract from emotions, ideology and politics, then this is a game, and the game has its own rules.

- They reach their goal?
- Sure! The evacuation of settlements from Gaza was a direct consequence of the nightmarish suicide attacks. Backing off, we showed that the methods they use are effective. By freeing hundreds of terrorists in exchange for the remains of two soldiers, we give impetus to new abductions. If we liberate Gilad Shalit for a thousand terrorists, among whom are the organizers of the bloodiest terrorist attacks, we will give our enemy an incentive to continue to kidnap soldiers. They impose their rules of the game on us, we accept them. (Those who are tempted to accuse Israel Auman of cruelty, we recall that his son Shlomo died in the 1982 year in the Lebanese war, in the battle of Sultan Yakub. - Approx. Author.)

- Do you think that peacemaking leads to war? Then it basically becomes meaningless.
- Not always. But we must clearly understand the objectives of the enemy. If his goal is to resolve a conflict, peacekeeping is useful and expedient. But if the enemy’s goal is aggression and capture, peacemaking becomes dangerous and harmful. Neither Napoleon nor Hitler were interested in peace with their neighbors, and therefore attempts to pacify them led to the opposite result. In World War II, Hitler was no more guilty than Chamberlain, who declared to his fellow citizens after Munich that he had brought peace, and believed in it. This created the conviction in Hitler that England refuses to fight. The paradox is that in the early stages he was afraid of a direct clash with Britain and France and invaded Poland only when he was convinced that he would not meet resistance. When the aggressor sees that his methods work, he continues to follow them and makes new and new demands. If the aggressor meets with decisive resistance, he reconsiders his approach. Pacifism leads to war, as the country where it becomes an ideology begins to play by the rules of the aggressor. This is happening with Israel.

- How to explain the fact that the more we retreat, the greater pressure we are subject to from the rest of the world?
- This is natural. The international community is the third player. The third player, as a rule, is always interested in withdrawing aggression from itself and directing it in a convenient direction. Since the Arabs act as the attacking side, the world around us is pleased that there is a permanent object falling victim to their aggression. Therefore, it is meaningless to hope for understanding and sympathy. The world has already forgotten that we left Gaza. The world does not want to notice rocket attacks. The world sees only what it wants to see: Palestinians suffered during Operation Cast Lead.
- Is it even possible to achieve peace with the Arabs, given the differences in values ​​and worldviews?
“You can coexist with the Arabs if they realize that war, terror and violence will have more difficult consequences for them than for us.” Say, dreaming to destroy us, they should be aware that this will lead to disastrous results for them. According to the principle of repetitive games, long-term interaction, even in conflict, creates a balance of power that opens up the possibility of cooperation. If a party feels the danger of punishment for certain extreme steps, it will abandon these steps and prefer the status quo. That is what will make the world real. And it's not just the current conflict. We resigned to the fact that the Palestinians are, by definition, Arabs. In fact, genuine Palestinians are Jews. In Jerusalem, in 1912, two thirds of the population was Jewish (64%). Most of the remaining residents were Christians. Palestine has never been Arab. At the end of the 17th century, about 500 people lived in Gaza, half of them were Jews, and the rest were Christians. Pogroms expelled Jews from Hebron and many other places in the 20-ies, and then from 1948 to 1967 a year. But this does not mean that we were not there. And the fact that we forgot about this basic moment is a terrible mistake! We are undermining our right to this land.

- How then to explain that we persistently repeat the same mistakes?
- This is really irrational behavior. I think the reason is rooted in the lack of motivation. People do not understand why they are here, what are their highest goals, ideals. The Jewish state is empty for them. But why then do we need sacrifices? Patience is needed to achieve peace. We have no patience, but the Arabs have it. Surprisingly, the “Russian” Israelis have that sense of reality that the indigenous people lack. Their own bitter experience and education they are told that desire alone is not enough to turn a dream into reality. They know the Roman formula “If you want peace, prepare for war.” I remember how the media attacked Lieberman when he said that if the former scheme of concessions and goodwill steps does not work, the scheme must be changed. But this is the moment of truth!
Rereading Thucydides
Does the past teach anything? Ironically, opinions are divided.
For example, a veteran of Israeli politics, Israeli President and Nobel Prize laureate Shimon Peres declares that the past cannot teach us anything, since the realities of the past are irrelevant to modern times. On the other hand, the American philosopher George Santana belongs to the dictum: "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." In the past (and on a very recent historical scale) the Jewish people had a Holocaust, and they should ponder whether the position of some of its leaders does not lead to the danger of a repetition of the Holocaust. From our point of view, the development of the Arab-Israeli conflict is quite likely under the scenario disastrous for Israel, and this probability is aggravated by the lack of a strategic concept of the conflict and its often erroneous tactics by the Israeli leadership.
In connection with the foregoing, it is extremely useful, referring to history, to try to get answers to questions about why and why military conflicts begin and how to prevent them. Conflicts like the Arab-Israeli one have happened in the past many times.
Let us turn to the ancient Greek historian and outstanding philosopher Thucydides. His immortal work on the Peloponnesian War "History" contains not only accurate observations of his contemporaries and fascinating descriptions of events, but also a deep causal analysis. Having reread the “History”, we outline parallels with modernity.
The Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta began in 431 BC. er the invasion of the Spartan army in Attica, continued with varying success and truces 27 years and ended with the complete defeat of Athens.
Initially, the Spartans, as usual, preferring the strategy of crushing, tried to impose on the Athenians a general battle, the outcome of which they, having a superior army, had no doubt about. However, the Athenians, not accepting the battle, withdrew over the impregnable walls of the city, and the siege began.
The Spartans, cutting off all the land supply lines, tried to strangle Athens with hunger, but they had nothing to oppose to the Athenian fleet, which gave them all the necessary supplies, and also constantly attacked the rear of the Spartans, inflicting heavy losses on them. There was a stalemate in which none of the opponents was able to win. The end came when Sparta, changing the rules of the game, built with the money the worst enemies of Greece - the Persians - a powerful navy, defeated the fleet of the Athenians and completely blocked the city. Athens capitulated.
Why did this war start? According to Thucydides, because of the "profacis", which literally translates as "subjectively experienced resentment", and simply - an excuse. Sparta presented a long list of “intolerable insults” allegedly inflicted on her by Athens, which forced her against her will (!) To start a war. But, as Thucydides points out, these were all just excuses, and the real reason was completely different.
Athens was a powerful democratic state with a rapidly developing fleet, trade and crafts. This led to the unprecedented growth of the population’s living standards in the ancient world, the heyday of science, culture and the arts. Athens became the economic and cultural-political center of the ancient world. By this they instilled in themselves the fear, envy and hatred of oligarchic, agrarian, impoverished and primitive Sparta, whose whole life style kept on brute force and coercion. Sparta had the most powerful army of the ancient world, so it was decided, before it was too late, to destroy such a dangerous and rapidly growing rival.
Conclusion: the true causes of aggression are envy, stagnation, pride, thirst for revenge, but these reasons are never called, instead they are called far-fetched, but beautifully sounding pretexts. Wars want reactionary regimes, they become aggressors.
Compare with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Arabs call many “intolerable insults” allegedly inflicted by Israel (it’s curious that all claims are made by only one side - Arab, Israel is always justified), but they can be reduced to three: “occupied” territories in 1967, Arab refugees and the status of Jerusalem . All these reasons, upon careful consideration, do not hold water. Before 1967, both the territories and Jerusalem belonged to the Arabs, but the conflict existed, and its intensity was no less. The entire territory of Israel is 0,2% of the territory of the Arab states, and the "occupied" territory is a completely insignificant value, therefore the claim that they are vital for the Arabs is ridiculous.
The thesis “peace for territories” sounds simply indecent, just like “love for money”. It is clear to any rational person that the world can only be “for the world”, just like “love for love”. By setting the peace condition for Israel’s retreat to the borders of 1967 of the year, the Arabs show that they do not want peace, but to maximally weaken Israel before the decisive battle, since the borders of 1967 of the year are very difficult to defend.
There is no doubt that if Israel retreats to the borders of 1967 of the year, then the requirement to retreat to the borders of 1947 of the year will immediately follow, which, by the way, is very logical, because the borders of 1967 of the year have never been recognized, and indeed, they were not they were just ceasefire lines in 1948. The boundaries of the 1947 of the year are legalized by a UN decision.
Possessing vast non-inhabited spaces, the Arabs, if they wanted to, could easily resettle the refugees, and with the money spent on the war with Israel, also make each of them a millionaire. Israel was able to integrate hundreds of thousands of refugees from Arab countries (and this is in addition to hundreds of thousands of refugees from European countries), and it never even occurred to anyone to demand their return or compensation for damages.
But instead of integrating refugees, the Arabs settled them in camps - ghettos, where they have already been in possession of UN funds for 60 for years, since Arab countries do not allocate funds for their maintenance and do everything possible to prevent their integration in their home countries. All this is being done in order to preserve this problem as a means of pressure on Israel.
The problem of Jerusalem is also far-fetched. The claims of the Arabs that Jerusalem is the second most important city after Mecca for them is a lie that appeared simultaneously with the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli conflict several decades ago. Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Qur'an. The Arabs demand Jerusalem because they know perfectly well its importance for the Jews, because they want to pull out the heart of the Jewish state and break its spirit.
All three main causes of the conflict, advanced by the Arabs, fall under the definition of “preposition”. The real reason for the Arabs' rejection of the Jewish state is that it, created on an extremely insignificant and, without any resources, territory, is ahead of them literally in all respects, creating their strongest inferiority complex and therefore inspiring fear, envy, hatred, thirst for revenge.
Why do wars start? According to Thucydides, the cause of the outbreak of war is the absence of a deterrent factor. The aggressor will never start a war, not hoping for victory, knowing that he will receive an immediate and crushing rebuff. It is not peace treaties and agreements that provide peace, but an awareness by the aggressor of the inevitability of retribution.
It is unacceptable to show weakness in the face of aggression, to pursue a policy of appeasement and concessions, to try to reach a compromise. Democracy rests on the basis of a compromise, but for a totalitarian aggressor, any attempt at a compromise is a sign of weakness that will only increase its aggressiveness.
The totalitarian aggressor understands only the language of force, therefore constantly, not excluding periods of calm, he should be reminded that he will pay a huge, unacceptable price for aggression, that is, it is necessary to follow the principle of inevitability of punishment, which, by the way, is one of the basic principles of justice any state. It only makes sense to negotiate with the crushed aggressor.
Manifestations of weakness and indecision have always cost Israel dearly. The one-sided retreat from Lebanon in 2000 led to the situation that Hezbollah, formerly a marginal group, fanned by the glory of a winner, turned into the largest Shiite organization controlling not only southern Lebanon, where it actually created a state in the state, but also a part Beirut, areas in central and northern Lebanon. Her aggressiveness and danger for Israel has grown many times, which she proved in the summer of 2006, holding a third of Israel under fire. The withdrawal from Gaza, perceived by its population as a confirmation of the thesis "terror works," led first to the victory of Hamas in the "democratic" elections, and then to establish its full control over the sector.
How and how do wars end? According to Thucydides, the Peloponnesian war could have been resolved in only one of two ways: either Athens would crush Sparta and destroy the foundation of its military and economic power forever, freeing slaves, or Sparta would crush the Athenian fleet, close the siege of Athens from the sea and force Athens to surrender. This means that a war ends only when one of the parties inflicts a decisive defeat on the enemy and imposes his will on him.
The same principle applies in our time. The First World War claimed millions of lives, but did not decide anything, because Germany was not crushed, her spirit was not broken, and she was striving for revenge, that is, the cause of the war was not eliminated. Therefore, after 20 years after it ended, the incomparably more brutal World War II, which claimed tens of millions of lives, began. This time Germany and Japan were not just crushed, but literally powdered. As a result, the cause of the conflict was eliminated forever, and the former mortal enemies became the closest allies and friends.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is perhaps the most prominent example. The Jewish state had to fight four times in its history for its right to exist - in 1947, 1956, 1967 and 1973.
Each time the Israel Defense Forces come up with brilliant victories, the Arabs start to cry for help, powerful external forces intervene, another cease-fire is being imposed on Israel, guaranteed by them. The Arabs carry it out until they regain their combat capability and feel ready for a new war, after which they grossly violate the terms of the truce.
Mighty external forces declare the impossibility to support by force their guarantees and ... Israel, left alone with the enemies, is again forced to fight for its existence. All this is happening because Israel has never been allowed to end the war with the decisive defeat of the enemy, crushing his will and forcing him to forever abandon the idea of ​​destroying Israel.
From this point of view, peace with the Arabs is not possible in the foreseeable future. Israel needs to be prepared for the conflict to continue for dozens of years. It is necessary to stop retreating, losing strategic advantages, take a firm and uncompromising stance and grow stronger day after day, year after year - economically, militarily, politically. Only then will the day come when the Arabs will realize that Israel is too tough for them, and will leave hope to destroy it, the day when peace will come.

Uri Zvi Grinberg, sem40.ru

Our people
Subscribe to ForumDaily on Google News


 
1060 requests in 1,081 seconds.