Two-leveled game theory and the Israel-Hamas conflict
As part of being a human in this world I spend time in each day to learn about what is going on around the world. In doing so I recently stumbled upon an article that lightly analyzed the interplay of force tactics and negotiation tactics of both the Israeli government and Hamas, the current ruling power in the Gaza strip, in their most recent conflict this summer. The author suggest things such as the possibility that the use of force in some cases was a negotiation strategy to make clear the consequences of unmet demands. For example, Hamas’ rockets fired at Israeli citizens during times of supposed negotiation may have been Hamas’ way of telling Israel that if talks fail the no-deal option is not good. Similarly Israel’s retaliatory air-strikes may have been its way of conveying to Hamas that if the negotiations fail and rocket fire continues then there will be continued attacks on Hamas-affiliated infrastructure. What intrigued me the most and is the reason I am posting this on this blog was that the author brought up the importance of recognizing that in this conflict there was a very large and very intricate two-levels game at play.
The implementation of game theory relates to what we have been learning in class. The surface level game is one in which the two players are Israel and Hamas and they each have a number of strategies, mainly to negotiate a ceasefire or to fight. But there is an inner level of the game on each side as well. On the side of Hamas there are multiple players such as the Palestinian Authority, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades, who each supposedly had some say in what stance the Gazans would take in the conflict. They would clearly each have a unique ‘payoffs’ from whatever the outcome is. For example, the PA would probably get a greater payoff from a diplomatic approach, as opposed to Islamic Jihad or Al-Qassam which might prefer the results of a militaristic approach dependent on the circumstances. In Israel, the military leaders, right-wing politicians, and left-wing politicians will all be players and will likewise have their own individual payoff for each possible outcome. Although the two levels of the game may look like two separate games altogether, its still important to recognize that the strategies will be weighed by each sub group, not only based on what the other subgroups on their side might push, but also an what the opposing group of players will choose. The payoffs are also linked to the outcomes of both levels of the game. Obviously the Israel-Hamas conflict is extremely complex and it will not play out like one of the sample games we considered in class or in the textbook. I found that this article expresses how even such intricate situations still end up taking the form of a game, although the game may be slightly more nuanced.
Source: http://warontherocks.com/2014/09/towards-a-gaza-cease-fire-talking-and-shooting-in-cairo/#_