Prof. Yisrael Aumann of Hebrew University recently won the Nobel Prize in Economics, and his country couldn't be more proud of him. It's evident in the explosion of speaking engagements, interviews and public applause that followed the award. And rightly so.
As this Arutz Sheva article notes, Aumann's prize winning achievement was his contribution to the "understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis." And so it's neither surprising nor outside the range of his expertise when he speaks about Israel's current social and political crises, and about this in particular:
"The treatment of the refugees (of the Disengagement Plan) is a national disgrace. Many of the refugees are still in hotels, even now, almost six months after the evacuation and without minimal conditions. Many of them have yet to arrive at some sort of final living arrangements and even temporary yet acceptable living arrangements. There is no work, the children are desperate. There were a few attempts of suicide. Many families, perhaps even most, have yet to see one agora of compensation and even those who have, spend it on their mutual, day-to-day living expenses. We're not talking about an enemy here, we aren't talking about lawbreakers but about people who produce, who built model communities and who have now lost everything. And yet everybody is ignorant. The media is ignorant. Nobody hears a word of it, nobody heeds it any attention. I, for one, am not silent and will not be silent. I do not know how this affects the national resilience."
[ . . . ]
Another insight game theory has with relation to our conflict has to do with what is known as "returning games". The principle that prolonged interaction attracts and can be used to foment cooperation that cannot be fruitful without this situation (of interaction). A one-time meeting does not fulfill potential opportunities for cooperation but a prolonged interaction can have mutual interests. The return to the game creates the opportunity for punishment and when there is such a possibility, the punishment need not be enacted but the possibility of it being enacted creates a positive momentum. Therefore, prolonged interaction can bring about cooperation because at any stage, both sides know that there are future rewards and punishment for not following and playing by the rules.
We must have real and true patience. The other side must realize and internalize this. The Arabs always said that they have time until we will exit the arena, whether in ten, twenty or fifty years. Our problem is that we have no time. The future is less important to us. We are in a rush. We want peace now. We really want peace now. The future is distant. We say and think in ourselves that the situation cannot go on like this, something must be done. And then we go and destroy beautiful settlements, thriving and productive settlements, sacrificing hundred of people on the altar of "something must be done".
Well, this crazy galloping towards the peace that is yearned for actually distances us. Our interest rate is too high. If we had time and patience, if we understand and can, in fact, continue like this and if we convince the other side that this is so, and if we ourselves are ready and willing to accept this, then maybe we really will receive the desired peace and even peace now. He who wants peace now will not receive peace ever. He who has patience can wait, demonstrate it and this will make the other side internalize this – he will be the one giving peace a chance.
Ironically, perhaps, Prof. Aumann gave this speech at this year's annual Herzliya Conference on the Balance of National Security -- the same Herzliya Conference at which, just a little over two years ago, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon first announced his "disengagement" plan.
