Bruce Bueno de Mesquita’s game theory and the Israel-Palestine conflict July 17, 2008
Posted by fleshisgrass in Israel, Palestine, conflict.Tags: "Bruce Bueno de Mesquita", game theory
trackback
Professor Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a political scientist – specifically a mathematician specialising in game theory and rational theory. He produced a computer-based model that predicts the outcome of any international conflict, providing the initial input is accurate. Unsurprisingly – because he works as if most things can be expressed in numbers – he’s a controversial figure, but he has a track record of accurate and – riskily for him – very specific predictions. He believes in being specific because, among other work, he advises the Pentagon.
Here is an excerpt on the Israel-Palestine conflict from a wider ranging and dramatically-titled piece The New Nostradamus in GOOD Magazine (I got to this via Marginal Revolution which was a click from the front page of Pickled Politics at the time).
“Recently, he’s applied his science to come up with some novel ideas on how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “In my view, it is a mistake to look for strategies that build mutual trust because it ain’t going to happen. Neither side has any reason to trust the other, for good reason,” he says. “Land for peace is an inherently flawed concept because it has a fundamental commitment problem. If I give you land on your promise of peace in the future, after you have the land, as the Israelis well know, it is very costly to take it back if you renege. You have an incentive to say, ‘You made a good step, it’s a gesture in the right direction, but I thought you were giving me more than this. I can’t give you peace just for this, it’s not enough.’ Conversely, if we have peace for land—you disarm, put down your weapons, and get rid of the threats to me and I will then give you the land—the reverse is true: I have no commitment to follow through. Once you’ve laid down your weapons, you have no threat.”
Bueno de Mesquita’s answer to this dilemma, which he discussed with the former Israeli prime minister and recently elected Labor leader Ehud Barak, is a formula that guarantees mutual incentives to cooperate. “In a peaceful world, what do the Palestinians anticipate will be their main source of economic viability? Tourism. This is what their own documents say. And, of course, the Israelis make a lot of money from tourism, and that revenue is very easy to track. As a starting point requiring no trust, no mutual cooperation, I would suggest that all tourist revenue be [divided by] a fixed formula based on the current population of the region, which is roughly 40 percent Palestinian, 60 percent Israeli. The money would go automatically to each side. Now, when there is violence, tourists don’t come. So the tourist revenue is automatically responsive to the level of violence on either side for both sides. You have an accounting firm that both sides agree to, you let the U.N. do it, whatever. It’s completely self-enforcing, it requires no cooperation except the initial agreement by the Israelis that they are going to turn this part of the revenue over, on a fixed formula based on population, to some international agency, and that’s that.”
Just makes me think again about how I wish I was good at maths, I wish I understood game theory better and I wish more of this kind of conflict resolution was going on.
There is a picture quiz, the reader has to choose which is a Jew and which is a Palestinian:
http://morris108.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/picture-quiz-6-jews-6-palestinians-choose-which-is-which-answers-provided/
It’s not a very good quiz, is it Morris? You might as well have asked, in 1930s Austria, who was the Jew and who the Aryan.
My only point being that looks don’t amount to a hill of beans when some Palestinian leaders and clerics – not all, certainly, but not a marginal fringe either – are pumping out hatred of Jews.
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1888
We should be really worried about Palestinians and their society, but there are enough people shoving Palporn like Mohamed Al Dura in our faces. It is nothing to do with bringing about answers. News for you – not thinking about it enough is not the problem here. The problem is that there are are no easy answers – certainly not for armchair idiots like you and me.
One of the most common errors that expert economists make it to equate financial gain with utility. How does de Mesquita explain Egyptian radicals targeting tourists?
His base analysis may be solid, to an extent, but his proposed solution is absurd. I hope no one in Washington takes him seriously.
(p.s. believe me, I know these guys – I did a MSc in game theory).
I didn’t know that!
They do take him seriously – he’d made a lot of accurate predictions according to the article.
To be fair, all tourist spots in London are heavily surveyed for terror not least from home grown bombers. I think Mesquitas was proposing to explicitly tie Israeli and Palestinian financial interests so that combatants and terrorists can’t bomb one without also hurting the other. Considering (take the IRA) that for many terrorists the act of terror is not fanaticism but involves a huge sacrifice of conscience (I can’t provide a source sorry) this might work – there will always be fringe fanatics this won’t work for, but for your common or garden tactical bomber… It will also provide a reason – if there is any room for Israel to think twice about an incursion – to think do just that.
I hope that doesn’t sound too glib – not meant to.
How does Mesquita’s application of game theory to the Israel/Palestinian conflict compare to Robert Auman’s? Around the time Auman won his Nobel (2005), he posited that the conflict would continue for another 90 years, but can’t recall why or what alternatives he saw or didn’t see to the “land for peace” thing that most people see as key.
As for Beuno de Mesquito’s proposal itself, I’m not sure a fixed ratio division of tourism revenue works a whole lot better than land for peace. The Islamists not only damage Israel’s tourism economy by raining rockets on it and deploying suicide bombers, they have also wrecked tourism in the territories, notably the Christmas tourism in Bethleheim, never mind the havoc the Muslim Bros have inflicted on tourism in Egypt and Jordan. A true Islamist spits on material betterment — money is only for jihad — whereas Israeli incursions and closures are invariable reactions to acts of violence.
“A true Islamist spits on material betterment”
That sounds right.
I suppose (putting my impression of a Mesquitas hat on, in my ignorance) you then have to go back and study each instance of terror, who was behind it, the rationale (e.g. resistance to the occupation or Islamist extremist strikes against the kuffar?), whom it affected, who supported it.
Assuming there’s a pure resistance unrelated to Islamist extremism, although maybe associated with it for strategic reasons, and that pure resistance cares about the Palestinian economy, then it ceases acts of terror, combine with Israel in security efforts, isolating the Islamist extremists who lose all but the obsessive core of support – dangerous but possible to defend against.
That’s bound to be way too noddy, but still.
Auman I’d have to look into.
Land for peace is complicated by the conflicting interests of the settler members of Olmert’s coalition, who are actually inhabiting some of the land in question (am I right?) having different interests from the peacemakers. Those settlers, I understand, wield a lot of power over the coalition – witness the resumption of settlement activity after the Mercaz Harev seminary suicide bombing.
I hope that by “pure resistance” you mean a political movement that seeks good governance for the Palestinians through normal political processes and not through violence and intimidation. Maybe that mentality exists among the non-Jewish particpants in One Voice. However, it would be quite a leap to go from hosting cultural events that are rallies against violence and in support of normalized relations to actually fielding candidates in the next elections in the PA and I fear that if they did, the candidates’ life expectancy would be very, very short.
Worse than continuing the building of settlements after the suicide attack on the Mercaz, is the continued building of settlements after having to build the security barrier, after evacuating Gaza and the on-going extortion that sees the release of prisoners with blood on their hands. It can only be construed as Israel acting in bad faith.
“I hope that by “pure resistance” you mean a political movement…”
By “pure resistance” I meant resistance – with or without violence – to the occupation, in the absence of resistance to the existence of Israel as a state for Jews. No matter that violence is totally counterproductive for Palestinians, there is a difference between that and totalitarian jihad for waqf. It’s very hard to negotiate with the latter, even harder if you aren’t Muslim, and you’re right they don’t give two damns about tourism.
So maybe the tourism game theory would work with Fatah. Al Aqsa Martyrs but it would only work as intended if the Islamists could be contained.
The route of the security barrier is an insult to peace.
The whole idea of game theory based on responses by rational people goes out the window when one is considering the responses of crazies such as suicide bombers and the islamic leaders who incite them, and who want the US and Israel destroyed at all costs. I’m not sure the responses of such leaders to economic and social conditions and events can be mathematically modeled.
“I’m not sure the responses of such leaders to economic and social conditions and events can be mathematically modeled.”
Thanks JLester – I think you’re right there – but neither can it be accurately predicted by international relations people, terrorists, Islamists, politicians or sociologists. I’d expect a broad church approach to this conflict resolution and I don’t have any problem with modelling – so long as it has something to offer and so long as it doesn’t become a hubristic orthodoxy. The current financial crisis probably gives rise to some comment on modelling – damned if I know what it is.
In many ways humans are predictable. We are not above being mathematically predicted ourselves with respect to collective behaviour and responses. Certainly I don’t get the impression that Islamist terrorists are chaotic crazy, anyway – they are usually strategic and thought out.
World should be more concern about Zionist and fanatic Jesus-ist (christian) terrorists who are praying for armageddon to destroy the world. These are the real threat to the world.
KW, fanatic Jesus-ist Christian Terrorists who are praying for Armageddon are not very high up my league table of world threats.
I wonder if Mr. Bueno de Mesquita was able to predict this (exposing myself to the world) and trying to unite mankind in a peaceful way. I left a message for all to read on the MySpace website. Search, I AM THE SECOND SON. Life will be reestablished as it was intended. Count on this to happen very soon.
For the past two years I’ve been trying to establish Peace and bring about a new understanding of Life that has been overlooked (hidden) from the populous. The situation of this World is becoming extremely dangerous and unstable. The future is never known for factors can still be changed to establish an outcome of events. That is, those who wish to make a change.
Let it be known that after two years of trying to get the governments of this world to work together for a common Peace, I must now fulfill that which has been foretold throughout history. I really didn’t want to become a warrior but it seems I have been given little choice. You should not fear the war I wage for it is going to be non-terminal conflicts. I bring about war without killing. I mean to capture and control all those who do not appreciate Life as it was established on this planet long ago. Those I have contacted should have taken some time to talk to me. Now, I must do what everyone has feared. The Greek writer Homer stated; “For Whom the Gods would make power for would first destroy.” It is not with the bombs or weapons currently on this planet I can assure you. I am not here to disrupt your lives violently, but I will destroy the society that has been created making one being more important than another. ALL are equal and have their own personal input to Life but it seems that there are those you would be named ‘King’, or ‘Queen’ and want to rule over those who appear less important. Slavery still exists but it has taken on a more modern term, ‘employee’. Just ask yourselves; “Why do some work the hardest only to be paid the least?” The CEO’s and the monarchy chain have people working the typical 40 hours a week so the upper echelon can achieve the bonuses and enjoy life. Why can’t everyone enjoy Life? Also, “Why would the people of this world allow those that cause violent conflicts (wars), to be allowed safe haven (bomb shelters/ NORAD/asylum) while the majority of the populous is left on their own to face possible death? I bring a war that will be as violent as those who oppose me. I am here and I am going to establish Peace and a New Passage of Life for All or this World will be consumed by the greed and the arrogance that is predominant to its society. Just remember, I wanted a Peaceful resolution only to be ignored. So here’s my prediction: By the end of 2009, I will have damaged the world economy greatly making world trade unprofitable. Greed is your enemy, not I.
is that comment from David Icke or David Shayler, so hard to tell the difference
It’s good isn’t it. There were around a thousand hits on this post the other day so I guess he thought I’d make a good noticeboard. I removed the web address before I approved it.
I don’t get much religious spam, just nutty neo-nazis…Hmm, might post a bit on that
Is mesquita Jewish
esr, dunno. Why?
Just trying to consider the source.
[...] has it come to this and why can’t this problem be solved ? Well here’s my version inspired by game theory. This hate and division have its roots all the way back into the 20th century when the Western [...]
Just a quick note on this to JLester and fleshisgrass, the word rational in game theory is not what it means in social interaction. a more accurate phrase would be “rational self interest”. Put in that context, a man incited to religious fervor and strapping a bomb to his chest to take out a perceived enemy in hopes of earning a place in heaven (and those delicious virgins) begins to make predictable sense (though not social rational sense). They have been taught a certain “way” and that way has certain prescriptions. Ignore the suicide bombers as soldiers, and think of them as walking grenades dispensed by their Terrorist masters. Knowing this tactic, you can predict it as an act by focusing on the people calling the shots and their goals in the terrorist organization.
One important thing that Game Theory and that Bruce teach is that diplomacy/negotiations aren’t between organizations and nations (a mistake in current political science thought), but between their respective talking heads. Thus in the Iran situation you focus on Amhadinejad (sp?) but in reference to his political survival in the face of the Ayatollah, not on the rank and file of Iranians (I know this may sound sad).
Finally, I should note that a lot of people falsely believe that there is no pattern to irrationality. Any mathematician worth his salt will tell you that randomness has a pattern or a formula or however you want to see it. Random is not the same as chaos. And irrationality is mathematical randomness (linguistically chaos), so it can be accounted for.
The only time we cannot predict what a crazy person will do, is when we don’t know he is crazy.
One more note. Bruce Buena De Mesquita requires the most detailed input from specialists. his and all game theory’s solutions are only as good as the data input. So his test against CIA analysts actually required him to ask them question so that he can understand the temperament and goals of the target in order to assign numerical values. Game Theory still requires an immense understanding of people and their psychology. Most of the resistance to game theory stems from people not wanting to believe that they can be so easily quantified, not to mention that game theory requires a lot of knowledge that they (opposing political scientists) lack and cannot learn quickly. Thier mumbo jumbo guessing ways are at risk of being found to be obsolete. But I still respect their work and research though. Under game theory everyone is NOT in fact a raving dirt bag, it’s just that even at man’s most altruistic, self interest governs all.
[...] Bueno De Mesquitas, Chairman of NYU’s Department of Politics, has an interesting take on why past peace plans have not worked, and how to structure new ones so that they do: “Land [...]
what does he say about the year 2012
said the year 2012 should come the day after 2011-12_31
what does he say about the future gift to israel?