Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass Issue 8: Israel at Risk of Entering Game-Changing 'Mind Traps'
Israel seems to be gaining momentum in its efforts to reshape the Middle East. However, significant biases and misconceptions pose challenges to achieving complete success. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
Israel seems to be experiencing success in its efforts to reshape the Middle East to its advantage. However, significant biases and fallacies pose a threat to its ultimate victory.
The ancient Greek historian Thucydides, known as the “father of realism,” observed in his *History of the Peloponnesian War* that allies of Athens “were making judgments based more on dim desire than on firm forethought, since humans are accustomed to hand over to unreflecting hope, what they long for, yet to thrust aside with autocratic reasoning, what they do not wish for.”
This tendency towards wishful thinking can help explain why powerful nations are sometimes defeated by apparently weaker adversaries, despite their material advantages. Many battles and wars are often lost in the minds of their leaders, where cognitive biases and fallacies lead to distorted thinking and, ultimately, poor decisions. The interplay of blind optimism, selective reasoning, and a reluctance to accept counterarguments illustrates how biases can lead to failure.
In its aggressive geopolitical strategy to reshape the region permanently, Israel risks succumbing to these mental traps, potentially undermining its apparent advantages. These distortions also enable the US-led “collective West” to adopt a relatively lenient stance toward Israel's increasingly aggressive actions, reinforcing a sense of impunity. The heightened emotional stakes and distorted judgments characteristic of wartime decision-making make these biases even more dangerous.
Cognitive shortcuts, or biases, enable quick decision-making but also invite significant judgment errors. Fallacies are logical missteps in reasoning or argumentation. Importantly, the two can interact; a bias can morph into a fallacy when incorporated into reasoning. Here, they will be examined together.
Drawing from recent cognitive science findings, I have developed the “Bias Mind Map,” which synthesizes key mental heuristics, initially used to analyze the 2007-2008 financial crisis. This framework allows for a systematic examination of mental distortions, revealing the underlying causes of problematic phenomena often only shared through anecdotes.
Exhibit 1
Let’s explore how these potent mental distortions might lead to Israel's substantial missteps, turning apparent success into genuine failure. While there are numerous other relevant biases and fallacies that are beyond the scope of this discussion, one particularly illustrative source is the speech delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly in New York on September 27, 2024. His address provides numerous insights into distorted thinking, suitable for academic analysis. While Netanyahu's prominent role draws attention, it’s crucial to note that he is not alone in these traps; a significant coalition of like-minded individuals surrounds him in Israeli politics. Additionally, many of Israel's adversaries fall into similar cognitive pitfalls, which explains the intensifying violence across the region, rooted in deep-seated animosities.
1. **Threat bias**
Decision-makers who perceive a situation as overwhelmingly threatening often overcommit resources to address it, frequently at the expense of seizing better opportunities. For example, automobile manufacturers facing pressure to phase out the internal combustion engine may overspend on uncertain green technologies instead of maximizing the profitability of existing vehicles.
After Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, Israeli leadership portrayed Palestinian military groups as existential threats to the state's existence. Netanyahu declared at the start of his UN speech: “My country is at war, fighting for its life… we face savage enemies who seek our annihilation, and we must defend ourselves against them.” This framing embodies the fallacy of reification, attributing life to an abstract concept.
As a result of this threat bias, Israel's leadership dedicated considerable resources to “defense,” opting to engage in a costly, multi-front war aimed at eliminating opposition. This course of action jeopardizes critical relationships with Western allies, particularly the US, and hinders the allocation of resources toward more constructive endeavors.
One might argue that Israeli leaders exaggerated the threat for propaganda purposes to sway public opinion. Nevertheless, there is always the risk that politicians may internalize their own rhetoric, leading to serious miscalculations. This threat bias can interact with other cognitive traps, as will be explored.
2. **Vividness bias and emotional appeal**
Netanyahu’s speech contained graphic depictions of Hamas’s actions: “They savagely murdered 1,200 people. They raped and mutilated women. They beheaded men. They burned babies alive. They burned entire families alive – babies, children, parents, grandparents. It seems reminiscent of the Nazi Holocaust.”
This passage illustrates vividness bias, where stark and emotionally charged details overshadow less attention-grabbing aspects. For instance, while a dramatic plane crash captures public outcry, the annual toll of smoking-related deaths often fades into the background. Strong emotions associated with vivid imagery can lead to reactive measures, neglecting other critical issues.
Netanyahu also invoked powerful visual language: “Hamas kidnapped 251 people from dozens of different countries, dragging them into the dungeons of Gaza.” The term “dungeon” evokes dark, medieval imagery, enhancing the emotional weight of his message. In reality, former hostages reported they had been held in flats rather than the horrific circumstances implied.
Additionally, Netanyahu personalized his narrative by presenting individuals affected by Hamas’s actions before the UN, contrasting their stories with the staggering toll of over 40,000 Palestinians killed by Israel. In a broader context, Palestinians were derided as “murderous monsters,” demonstrating dehumanization alongside emotional appeal and the fallacy of composition.
This emotionally charged rhetoric reinforced Israel's threat bias and spurred the “collective” West to align with or tolerate Israel’s aggressive posture, including endorsing radical statements made by Israeli officials.
3. **Faulty analogy**
The emotional passages also serve as examples of faulty analogy. The claim that the Hamas attack is analogous to the Holocaust disregards historical consensus regarding the Holocaust’s unprecedented scale. Such distorted thinking enhances the existing threat bias.
Comparing the events of October 7, 2023, to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks using similar date formats is misleading due to the differing scales and contexts.
Moreover, Netanyahu likened the current struggle to biblical narratives, asserting: “…we face the same timeless choice that Moses put before the people of Israel thousands of years ago…” This comparison inaccurately equates the aftermath of Hamas's attack with the significant exodus of an entire nation. Such an analogy can motivate and resonate with a nationalistic fervor, leading to misguided territorial ambitions.
Netanyahu also invoked another flawed analogy: “Just imagine… allowing the defeated Nazis in 1945 to rebuild Germany? It’s inconceivable. It’s ridiculous.” This comparison overlooks fundamental distinctions between Hamas and the Nazis. Such rhetoric can shape perceptions and motivations within Israeli society, drawing them towards extreme solutions.
4. **Escalation, closure, and bifurcation bias**
The dynamics of escalation can be understood through the concept of the “gambler’s dilemma,” which captures the challenge between stopping short of victory and continuing to pursue success at the risk of total loss. This dilemma often leads decision-makers to escalate their commitments without assessing the accompanying risks.
Netanyahu’s approach exemplifies this trend, as he intensifies Israel's military engagements across multiple fronts while making a public display of resolute leadership. He remarked: “We will not spare that effort until this holy mission is accomplished.” This drive for closure may prolong conflict if even one remaining hostage necessitates continued action.
Additionally, framing the mission as “holy” elevates the conflict’s moral underpinnings, obscuring the harsh realities of warfare.
Bifurcated thinking often leads to extreme choices due to oversimplification, and Netanyahu's rhetoric reflects this mindset. He stated, “As Israel defends itself against Iran in this seven-front war, the lines separating the blessing and the curse could not be more clear… In this battle between good and evil, there must be no equivocation,” discarding any potential middle ground or alternative solutions.
5. **Overconfidence and fallacy of last move**
Overconfidence often exacerbates the challenges of seeking closure. Netanyahu noted: “Israel will win this battle… we now have a brave army, an army of incomparable courage,” a claim bolstered by unfounded assertions.
He also referenced the historical perseverance of the Jewish people, expressing a sense of confidence bordering on hubris. His rhetoric suggests an unwavering belief in Israel's eternal place and dominance, even in the face of significant opposition.
This overconfidence contributes to the fallacy of the last move, wherein decision-makers neglect potential responses from adversaries. Netanyahu’s aspirations for a demilitarized, non-radicalized Gaza imply that he anticipates a conclusive end to aggression without considering potential backlash from opponents.
The consequences of such shortsightedness could lead to unforeseen escalation and prolonged conflict. Excessive Israeli military actions may provoke Iran to pursue nuclear capabilities as a defensive measure.
In conclusion, Israel's ongoing conflict is susceptible to the influence of various biases and fallacies, which can drastically change the trajectory of its efforts. The ruling coalition's singular focus on “winning” may not align with the long-term interests of the Jewish people, as their adversaries respond in kind, perpetuating a cycle of violence detrimental to all involved.
To steer clear of such detrimental outcomes, enlightened leadership is paramount, characterized by rigorous critical thinking, empathy, and the ability to reconcile competing perspectives. This requires forging win-win solutions and prioritizing ethical considerations, even when such paths are unpopular or may threaten one's leadership position.To transition from the cycle of conflict to a more constructive and peaceful approach, leaders must prioritize dialogue and understanding over aggression. This entails engaging in negotiations that acknowledge the fears and aspirations of all parties involved, particularly the Palestinian side, and addressing their grievances in meaningful ways. The importance of empathy cannot be overstated; recognizing the shared humanity of adversaries is essential in cultivating a more stable and peaceful coexistence.
Moreover, Israel must also critically examine its own narratives and policies. An honest appraisal of past actions—acknowledging mistakes and miscalculations—can pave the way for a more realistic understanding of the current situation. A willingness to adapt strategies based on learning from the past can enhance prospects for sustainable peace. In doing so, Israel has the potential to break free from the oppressive weight of historical grievances that fuel ongoing hostilities.
An essential component of this transformation involves redefining the frame of reference from rigid adversarial positions to cooperative engagement. By shifting the discourse from one of zero-sum confrontation to mutual benefit, leaders can open pathways for collaboration on shared goals such as security, economic development, and human rights. This approach will require the dismantling of entrenched biases and the willingness to engage with diverse perspectives.
Regional collaboration might also play a critical role in changing the dynamics of conflict in the Middle East. Broadening alliances with nations willing to support peace initiatives can create a supportive environment conducive to conflict resolution. Establishing cooperative frameworks with neighboring countries, even those historically seen as adversaries, can foster an atmosphere of trust and common purpose.
In addition to fostering international partnerships, leveraging grassroots movements that advocate for peace can amplify efforts to redirect narratives. Civil society organizations, NGOs, and community leaders often possess insights and perspectives that bureaucratic entities might overlook. Engaging these groups in constructive discourse can lead to innovative solutions and contribute to a more grounded understanding of the issues at hand.
Furthermore, education plays a pivotal role in reshaping perceptions and narratives. An informed populace that understands the complexities of the conflict is more likely to engage constructively rather than reactively. Educational initiatives should promote critical thinking, empathy, and conflict resolution skills, equipping future generations with the tools necessary to break the cycle of violence.
It's also vital to acknowledge the psychological dimensions of conflict. Trauma shapes perceptions and responses, and addressing the mental health needs of those affected by violence is essential. Support for trauma-informed care and reconciliation processes can help heal wounds inflicted over decades, creating a better foundation for peaceful coexistence.
Ultimately, the path forward requires not merely a change in strategy but a fundamental shift in mindset. Leaders must eschew the temptations of overconfidence and the trap of binary thinking, embracing complexity and uncertainty. In doing so, they can navigate the intricacies of the conflict with a view toward long-lasting peace.
Long-term success will depend on the ability to synthesize diverse viewpoints into cohesive strategies that reflect the nuanced realities of the region. This approach demands not only courage and intellectual rigor but also an unwavering commitment to principles of justice and equity.
In conclusion, the challenges facing Israel and its neighbors are formidable. However, by confronting biases and acknowledging fallacies in strategic thinking, leaders can initiate a transformative process away from aggression and toward lasting peace. Such a vision requires commitment, collaboration, and a willingness to act on shared human values, ultimately fostering a future where security, dignity, and justice prevail for all involved.
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
The ancient Greek historian Thucydides, known as the “father of realism,” observed in his *History of the Peloponnesian War* that allies of Athens “were making judgments based more on dim desire than on firm forethought, since humans are accustomed to hand over to unreflecting hope, what they long for, yet to thrust aside with autocratic reasoning, what they do not wish for.”
This tendency towards wishful thinking can help explain why powerful nations are sometimes defeated by apparently weaker adversaries, despite their material advantages. Many battles and wars are often lost in the minds of their leaders, where cognitive biases and fallacies lead to distorted thinking and, ultimately, poor decisions. The interplay of blind optimism, selective reasoning, and a reluctance to accept counterarguments illustrates how biases can lead to failure.
In its aggressive geopolitical strategy to reshape the region permanently, Israel risks succumbing to these mental traps, potentially undermining its apparent advantages. These distortions also enable the US-led “collective West” to adopt a relatively lenient stance toward Israel's increasingly aggressive actions, reinforcing a sense of impunity. The heightened emotional stakes and distorted judgments characteristic of wartime decision-making make these biases even more dangerous.
Cognitive shortcuts, or biases, enable quick decision-making but also invite significant judgment errors. Fallacies are logical missteps in reasoning or argumentation. Importantly, the two can interact; a bias can morph into a fallacy when incorporated into reasoning. Here, they will be examined together.
Drawing from recent cognitive science findings, I have developed the “Bias Mind Map,” which synthesizes key mental heuristics, initially used to analyze the 2007-2008 financial crisis. This framework allows for a systematic examination of mental distortions, revealing the underlying causes of problematic phenomena often only shared through anecdotes.
Exhibit 1
Let’s explore how these potent mental distortions might lead to Israel's substantial missteps, turning apparent success into genuine failure. While there are numerous other relevant biases and fallacies that are beyond the scope of this discussion, one particularly illustrative source is the speech delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly in New York on September 27, 2024. His address provides numerous insights into distorted thinking, suitable for academic analysis. While Netanyahu's prominent role draws attention, it’s crucial to note that he is not alone in these traps; a significant coalition of like-minded individuals surrounds him in Israeli politics. Additionally, many of Israel's adversaries fall into similar cognitive pitfalls, which explains the intensifying violence across the region, rooted in deep-seated animosities.
1. **Threat bias**
Decision-makers who perceive a situation as overwhelmingly threatening often overcommit resources to address it, frequently at the expense of seizing better opportunities. For example, automobile manufacturers facing pressure to phase out the internal combustion engine may overspend on uncertain green technologies instead of maximizing the profitability of existing vehicles.
After Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, Israeli leadership portrayed Palestinian military groups as existential threats to the state's existence. Netanyahu declared at the start of his UN speech: “My country is at war, fighting for its life… we face savage enemies who seek our annihilation, and we must defend ourselves against them.” This framing embodies the fallacy of reification, attributing life to an abstract concept.
As a result of this threat bias, Israel's leadership dedicated considerable resources to “defense,” opting to engage in a costly, multi-front war aimed at eliminating opposition. This course of action jeopardizes critical relationships with Western allies, particularly the US, and hinders the allocation of resources toward more constructive endeavors.
One might argue that Israeli leaders exaggerated the threat for propaganda purposes to sway public opinion. Nevertheless, there is always the risk that politicians may internalize their own rhetoric, leading to serious miscalculations. This threat bias can interact with other cognitive traps, as will be explored.
2. **Vividness bias and emotional appeal**
Netanyahu’s speech contained graphic depictions of Hamas’s actions: “They savagely murdered 1,200 people. They raped and mutilated women. They beheaded men. They burned babies alive. They burned entire families alive – babies, children, parents, grandparents. It seems reminiscent of the Nazi Holocaust.”
This passage illustrates vividness bias, where stark and emotionally charged details overshadow less attention-grabbing aspects. For instance, while a dramatic plane crash captures public outcry, the annual toll of smoking-related deaths often fades into the background. Strong emotions associated with vivid imagery can lead to reactive measures, neglecting other critical issues.
Netanyahu also invoked powerful visual language: “Hamas kidnapped 251 people from dozens of different countries, dragging them into the dungeons of Gaza.” The term “dungeon” evokes dark, medieval imagery, enhancing the emotional weight of his message. In reality, former hostages reported they had been held in flats rather than the horrific circumstances implied.
Additionally, Netanyahu personalized his narrative by presenting individuals affected by Hamas’s actions before the UN, contrasting their stories with the staggering toll of over 40,000 Palestinians killed by Israel. In a broader context, Palestinians were derided as “murderous monsters,” demonstrating dehumanization alongside emotional appeal and the fallacy of composition.
This emotionally charged rhetoric reinforced Israel's threat bias and spurred the “collective” West to align with or tolerate Israel’s aggressive posture, including endorsing radical statements made by Israeli officials.
3. **Faulty analogy**
The emotional passages also serve as examples of faulty analogy. The claim that the Hamas attack is analogous to the Holocaust disregards historical consensus regarding the Holocaust’s unprecedented scale. Such distorted thinking enhances the existing threat bias.
Comparing the events of October 7, 2023, to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks using similar date formats is misleading due to the differing scales and contexts.
Moreover, Netanyahu likened the current struggle to biblical narratives, asserting: “…we face the same timeless choice that Moses put before the people of Israel thousands of years ago…” This comparison inaccurately equates the aftermath of Hamas's attack with the significant exodus of an entire nation. Such an analogy can motivate and resonate with a nationalistic fervor, leading to misguided territorial ambitions.
Netanyahu also invoked another flawed analogy: “Just imagine… allowing the defeated Nazis in 1945 to rebuild Germany? It’s inconceivable. It’s ridiculous.” This comparison overlooks fundamental distinctions between Hamas and the Nazis. Such rhetoric can shape perceptions and motivations within Israeli society, drawing them towards extreme solutions.
4. **Escalation, closure, and bifurcation bias**
The dynamics of escalation can be understood through the concept of the “gambler’s dilemma,” which captures the challenge between stopping short of victory and continuing to pursue success at the risk of total loss. This dilemma often leads decision-makers to escalate their commitments without assessing the accompanying risks.
Netanyahu’s approach exemplifies this trend, as he intensifies Israel's military engagements across multiple fronts while making a public display of resolute leadership. He remarked: “We will not spare that effort until this holy mission is accomplished.” This drive for closure may prolong conflict if even one remaining hostage necessitates continued action.
Additionally, framing the mission as “holy” elevates the conflict’s moral underpinnings, obscuring the harsh realities of warfare.
Bifurcated thinking often leads to extreme choices due to oversimplification, and Netanyahu's rhetoric reflects this mindset. He stated, “As Israel defends itself against Iran in this seven-front war, the lines separating the blessing and the curse could not be more clear… In this battle between good and evil, there must be no equivocation,” discarding any potential middle ground or alternative solutions.
5. **Overconfidence and fallacy of last move**
Overconfidence often exacerbates the challenges of seeking closure. Netanyahu noted: “Israel will win this battle… we now have a brave army, an army of incomparable courage,” a claim bolstered by unfounded assertions.
He also referenced the historical perseverance of the Jewish people, expressing a sense of confidence bordering on hubris. His rhetoric suggests an unwavering belief in Israel's eternal place and dominance, even in the face of significant opposition.
This overconfidence contributes to the fallacy of the last move, wherein decision-makers neglect potential responses from adversaries. Netanyahu’s aspirations for a demilitarized, non-radicalized Gaza imply that he anticipates a conclusive end to aggression without considering potential backlash from opponents.
The consequences of such shortsightedness could lead to unforeseen escalation and prolonged conflict. Excessive Israeli military actions may provoke Iran to pursue nuclear capabilities as a defensive measure.
In conclusion, Israel's ongoing conflict is susceptible to the influence of various biases and fallacies, which can drastically change the trajectory of its efforts. The ruling coalition's singular focus on “winning” may not align with the long-term interests of the Jewish people, as their adversaries respond in kind, perpetuating a cycle of violence detrimental to all involved.
To steer clear of such detrimental outcomes, enlightened leadership is paramount, characterized by rigorous critical thinking, empathy, and the ability to reconcile competing perspectives. This requires forging win-win solutions and prioritizing ethical considerations, even when such paths are unpopular or may threaten one's leadership position.To transition from the cycle of conflict to a more constructive and peaceful approach, leaders must prioritize dialogue and understanding over aggression. This entails engaging in negotiations that acknowledge the fears and aspirations of all parties involved, particularly the Palestinian side, and addressing their grievances in meaningful ways. The importance of empathy cannot be overstated; recognizing the shared humanity of adversaries is essential in cultivating a more stable and peaceful coexistence.
Moreover, Israel must also critically examine its own narratives and policies. An honest appraisal of past actions—acknowledging mistakes and miscalculations—can pave the way for a more realistic understanding of the current situation. A willingness to adapt strategies based on learning from the past can enhance prospects for sustainable peace. In doing so, Israel has the potential to break free from the oppressive weight of historical grievances that fuel ongoing hostilities.
An essential component of this transformation involves redefining the frame of reference from rigid adversarial positions to cooperative engagement. By shifting the discourse from one of zero-sum confrontation to mutual benefit, leaders can open pathways for collaboration on shared goals such as security, economic development, and human rights. This approach will require the dismantling of entrenched biases and the willingness to engage with diverse perspectives.
Regional collaboration might also play a critical role in changing the dynamics of conflict in the Middle East. Broadening alliances with nations willing to support peace initiatives can create a supportive environment conducive to conflict resolution. Establishing cooperative frameworks with neighboring countries, even those historically seen as adversaries, can foster an atmosphere of trust and common purpose.
In addition to fostering international partnerships, leveraging grassroots movements that advocate for peace can amplify efforts to redirect narratives. Civil society organizations, NGOs, and community leaders often possess insights and perspectives that bureaucratic entities might overlook. Engaging these groups in constructive discourse can lead to innovative solutions and contribute to a more grounded understanding of the issues at hand.
Furthermore, education plays a pivotal role in reshaping perceptions and narratives. An informed populace that understands the complexities of the conflict is more likely to engage constructively rather than reactively. Educational initiatives should promote critical thinking, empathy, and conflict resolution skills, equipping future generations with the tools necessary to break the cycle of violence.
It's also vital to acknowledge the psychological dimensions of conflict. Trauma shapes perceptions and responses, and addressing the mental health needs of those affected by violence is essential. Support for trauma-informed care and reconciliation processes can help heal wounds inflicted over decades, creating a better foundation for peaceful coexistence.
Ultimately, the path forward requires not merely a change in strategy but a fundamental shift in mindset. Leaders must eschew the temptations of overconfidence and the trap of binary thinking, embracing complexity and uncertainty. In doing so, they can navigate the intricacies of the conflict with a view toward long-lasting peace.
Long-term success will depend on the ability to synthesize diverse viewpoints into cohesive strategies that reflect the nuanced realities of the region. This approach demands not only courage and intellectual rigor but also an unwavering commitment to principles of justice and equity.
In conclusion, the challenges facing Israel and its neighbors are formidable. However, by confronting biases and acknowledging fallacies in strategic thinking, leaders can initiate a transformative process away from aggression and toward lasting peace. Such a vision requires commitment, collaboration, and a willingness to act on shared human values, ultimately fostering a future where security, dignity, and justice prevail for all involved.
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
