Here I'll expose a few considerations the recent recrudescence of the Israeli/Palestinian led me to think of. I'll strive to abstract from the relative size of the forces, who's supposed to be right or wrong, the role and relative importance of involved allies, that of the United Nations, the external involved countries and the international press.
The Israeli/Palestinian contrast, if we try to read it according to the Theory of Games (Nash), emerges as a "competition" between two parties that dispute (sorry for the crude simplification) a "market" (territory). Specifically, it is a sequential game with a finite number of moves. Actually, both parties act as if the number of possible moves can only be limited; as if both actors expected that one day the conflict must necessarily end with one of two that definitely prevails over the other, which succumbs. Every war has this assumption.
In this kind of "game", the strategy with the highest individual benefit looks the opportunistic/selfish one: each party wants to maximize their individual benefit at the expense of the other. That happens even if the game would allow, in case of collaboration (eg. a peace agreement), a major individual benefit for each of the contenders ("prisoner's dilemma").
To have a possibility to the end of the conflict, the game should turn into an infinite sequence of moves. Like when two people get married: they sign a contract stating that their confrontation will last indefinitely (or until death of one or both partners or termination of the contract). This is a necessary precondition to enable collaboration as the best strategy for each party. In this kind of game the optimal strategy would be to pursue a higher collective benefit for the individual value of each of the interlocutors.
How could that be?
If I had an answer I would be a candidate for the Peace Nobel Prize.
Of course having a common objective would be of help.
I think this would probably be a good chance for Europe to start acting a unique, common foreign policy, gaining a third party role which would have some possibility to be recognised as neutral and balanced.
The Israeli/Palestinian contrast, if we try to read it according to the Theory of Games (Nash), emerges as a "competition" between two parties that dispute (sorry for the crude simplification) a "market" (territory). Specifically, it is a sequential game with a finite number of moves. Actually, both parties act as if the number of possible moves can only be limited; as if both actors expected that one day the conflict must necessarily end with one of two that definitely prevails over the other, which succumbs. Every war has this assumption.
In this kind of "game", the strategy with the highest individual benefit looks the opportunistic/selfish one: each party wants to maximize their individual benefit at the expense of the other. That happens even if the game would allow, in case of collaboration (eg. a peace agreement), a major individual benefit for each of the contenders ("prisoner's dilemma").
To have a possibility to the end of the conflict, the game should turn into an infinite sequence of moves. Like when two people get married: they sign a contract stating that their confrontation will last indefinitely (or until death of one or both partners or termination of the contract). This is a necessary precondition to enable collaboration as the best strategy for each party. In this kind of game the optimal strategy would be to pursue a higher collective benefit for the individual value of each of the interlocutors.
How could that be?
If I had an answer I would be a candidate for the Peace Nobel Prize.
Of course having a common objective would be of help.
I think this would probably be a good chance for Europe to start acting a unique, common foreign policy, gaining a third party role which would have some possibility to be recognised as neutral and balanced.
