Israel appears to be on a winning streak in its bid to reorder the Middle East. But potent biases and fallacies threaten its final victory

以色列在重塑中東秩序的努力中似乎取得了連勝。但強烈的偏見和謬論威脅著它的最終勝利

The ancient Greek historian Thucydides, the “father of realism,” in his History of the Peloponnesian War remarked that the Athenian allies “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.”

被譽為“現(xiàn)實主義之父”的古希臘歷史學家修昔底德在《伯羅奔尼撒戰(zhàn)爭史》中指出，雅典聯(lián)軍“作出判斷更多的是基于朦朧的愿望而非堅定的深思熟慮，因為人類習慣于把自己渴望的東西交給不假思索的希望，而把自己不希望的東西用專制的推理拋在一邊”。

This human weakness of one-sided wishful thinking can partly explain the startling historical pattern that many powerful countries have been defeated by a seemingly weaker enemy despite their material superiority. Indeed, single battles and entire wars are often lost inside the heads of politicians, generals and their troops. As regards the “inner theater” of people, where they play an inner game, there is much scientific evidence that a combination of biases and fallacies tends to distort the thinking of actors in various walks of life, prompting them to make fatally wrong decisions. The above case of blind wishful thinking coupled with the rigorous rejection of counterarguments – a counterproductive task for which reason paradoxically is given the full power of an absolute sovereign – serves as one example of such distorted thinking.

這種片面的一廂情愿的人類弱點可以部分解釋歷史上令人震驚的模式：許多強國盡管擁有物質(zhì)優(yōu)勢，卻被看似較弱的敵人打敗。事實上，政治家、將軍及其士兵常常忘記單場戰(zhàn)役和整場戰(zhàn)爭。至于人們的“內(nèi)心劇場”，即人們進行內(nèi)心游戲的地方，有大量科學證據(jù)表明，偏見和謬誤的結(jié)合往往會扭曲各行各業(yè)參與者的思維，促使他們做出致命的錯誤決定。上述盲目的一廂情愿的想法加上對反駁的嚴厲拒絕 — — 這是一項適得其反的任務，而矛盾的是，理性卻被賦予了絕對主權的全部權力 — — 就是這種扭曲思維的一個例子。

The state of Israel, in its determined geopolitical bid to permanently reorder the Middle East in its favor by sheer force, risks falling into several such treacherous mind traps and ultimately failing despite the odds, at least on the surface, being stacked in its favor. At the same time, these distortions prompt the US-led “collective West” to adopt a rather lenient attitude to Israel’s crossing of an increasing number of red lines with a sense of perpetual impunity and immunity. The presence of biases and fallacies is particularly pernicious in times of war, when the judgment of many powerful decision makers, due to emotional overload and the pressures of what is perceived as “necessity,” anyway tends to be more clouded than in times of peace.

以色列國決心通過純粹的武力，永久性地改變中東地區(qū)秩序，使其有利于自己，但它卻有可能陷入多個此類危險的思想陷阱，并最終失敗，盡管至少表面上看，它的勝算很大。與此同時，這些歪曲事實也促使以美國為首的“西方集體”對以色列日益跨越紅線的行為采取了相當寬容的態(tài)度，并認為可以永遠免受懲罰和豁免。偏見和謬誤的存在在戰(zhàn)爭時期尤其有害，因為許多強大的決策者的判斷由于情緒過載和所謂的“必要性”壓力而比和平時期更加模糊。

Biases are mental shortcuts that help human beings make decisions quickly in the midst of an overwhelming amount of information, yet accompanied by the risk of committing serious errors of judgment. Fallacies are logical mistakes in the process of using one’s reason and making an argument. Importantly, biases and fallacies can interact; a bias can even be transformed into a fallacy if it is used in the process of reasoning and arguing. Given this close relationship, the two mind traps are treated together here.

偏見是思維捷徑，它幫助人們在海量信息中快速做出決策，但同時也伴隨著犯下嚴重判斷錯誤的風險。謬誤是人們在運用理性和論證過程中出現(xiàn)的邏輯錯誤。重要的是，偏見和謬誤可以相互作用；如果在推理和辯論過程中使用偏見，它甚至可能轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橹囌`。鑒于這種密切的關系，本文將同時討論這兩種思維陷阱。

Based on the latest insights from cognitive science, I developed the “Bias Mind Map” (see Exhibit 1), which synthesizes the most important mental heuristics and was first used to analyze the root causes of the 2007-2008 financial crisis (Published in The Effective Executive, 11 (December 12, 2008, p. 58). This analytical frxwork makes it possible to analyze mental distortions in a systematic and comprehensive way and to uncover the root causes of problematic phenomena, which otherwise often are captured only in the form of anecdotes.

基于認知科學的最新見解，我開發(fā)了“偏見思維導圖”，它綜合了最重要的心理啟發(fā)法，并首次用于分析 2007-2008 年金融危機的根本原因（發(fā)表于《卓有成效的管理者》第 11 期（2008 年 12 月 12 日，第 58 頁）。通過該分析框架，我們可以系統(tǒng)、全面地分析心理扭曲，揭示問題現(xiàn)象的根本原因，而這些原因通常僅以軼事的形式被捕獲。

Let us a have a look at this powerful set of potent mental distortions, which partially reinforce each other in a pernicious manner and, as a result, may derail Israel, converting apparent success into real failure. There are additional important biases and fallacies pertinent to the issue at hand, but not covered here due to space constraints. It turned out that the speech delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly in New York on September 27, 2024 constitutes a particularly rich treasure trove to mine for instructive samples of distorted thinking and thus is suitable to be used for textbooks on biases and fallacies. While singling out the prime minister due to his prominent position inside the state of Israel, it should be emphasized that he is not the only politician who fell into the various mind traps, but that instead there is a sizeable ruling coalition of like-minded persons in Israel. Furthermore, many enemies of Israel are equally succumbing to various biases and fallacies, which helps to explain the escalatory battles raging in the Middle East – a tragedy that has its roots in poisoned hearts and minds and needs to be cured in this inner place first.

讓我們來看看這組強大的心理扭曲，它們以有害的方式相互強化，結(jié)果可能使以色列脫軌，將明顯的成功變成真正的失敗。還有其他與當前問題相關的重要偏見和謬誤，但由于篇幅限制，這里沒有涉及。事實證明，以色列總理本杰明·內(nèi)塔尼亞胡于 2024 年 9 月 27 日在紐約聯(lián)合國大會上發(fā)表的講話是一個特別豐富的寶庫，可以挖掘出扭曲思維的指導樣本，因此適合用于有關偏見和謬誤的教科書。
雖然由于總理在以色列國內(nèi)的顯赫地位而單獨批評他，但應該強調(diào)的是，他并不是唯一一個陷入各種思維陷阱的政客，而是在以色列有一個由志同道合的人組成的龐大執(zhí)政聯(lián)盟。此外，以色列的許多敵人也同樣屈服于各種偏見和謬論，這有助于解釋中東地區(qū)不斷升級的戰(zhàn)爭——這場悲劇的根源在于被毒害的心靈，需要首先從內(nèi)心深處進行治愈。

1. Threat bias
Decision makers who frx a problem as an overwhelming threat tend to overcommit resources to combatting the perceived problem, often at the expense of losing better opportunities elsewhere. For example, the managers of automobile manufacturers, panicking because of the government-enforced phasing out of the internal combustion engine, tend to overspend resources on unproven “green” technologies while failing to milk the cash cow of cars with the old mature technology as long as it lives.

1. 威脅的偏見
將問題視為巨大威脅的決策者往往會投入過多的資源來解決所認為的問題，而往往以失去其他更好的機會為代價。例如，汽車制造商的管理者因為政府強制淘汰內(nèi)燃機而感到恐慌，往往會在未經(jīng)證實的“綠色”技術上投入過多的資源，而只要舊的成熟技術還存在，他們就無法利用它從汽車中賺取利潤。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


In Israel’s case, in the wake of the Hamas attack on settlements on October 7, 2023, Palestinian military resistance groups were frxd as an existential threat endangering the Jewish state’s very survival. At the very beginning of his UN speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated: “My country is at war, fighting for its life… we face savage enemies who seek our annihilation, and we must defend ourselves against them.” (Emphasis added by author). By the way, by imputing life into an abstract construct, the Israeli politician commits the fallacy of reification and hypostatization.

就以色列而言，2023 年 10 月 7 日哈馬斯襲擊定居點后，巴勒斯坦軍事抵抗組織被視為危及猶太國家生存的生存威脅。內(nèi)塔尼亞胡總理在聯(lián)合國演講的開篇就指出：“我的國家正在為生存而戰(zhàn)……我們面對著試圖消滅我們的野蠻敵人，我們必須保衛(wèi)自己?！薄ｍ槺阏f一句，通過將生命歸結(jié)為抽象概念，以色列政客犯下了物化和實體化的謬誤。

As a consequence of threat bias, Israel’s leadership overcommitted scarce resources on the above-mentioned “defense,” deciding to embark on a costly multifront war with its enemies in a bid to eliminate opposition wherever it might surface. By opting for an all-out confrontation, it undermined its valuable relationship with Western allies, especially the US, and was prevented from channeling funds to more productive uses.

由于威脅偏見，以色列領導層在上述“防御”上投入了過多的稀缺資源，決定與敵人展開一場代價高昂的多線戰(zhàn)爭，以期消滅任何可能出現(xiàn)的反對力量。通過選擇全面對抗，它破壞了與西方盟友（特別是美國）的寶貴關系，并無法將資金用于更有成效的用途。

As a caveat, it might be argued that Israeli leaders frxd the Hamas attack as an existential threat and exploited other methods of distortion only for propaganda purposes to sway the domestic and international audience. But even if this were true, there is always the danger of politicians finally believing in their own rhetoric and committing grave errors as a consequence. Threat bias can interact with other biases, as we will see now.

需要注意的是，有人可能會說，以色列領導人將哈馬斯的襲擊描繪成一種生存威脅，并利用其他歪曲手段僅僅是為了宣傳目的，來影響國內(nèi)和國際觀眾。但即使這是真的，政客們也有可能最終相信自己的言論，并因此犯下嚴重錯誤。威脅偏見可以與其他偏見相互作用，正如我們現(xiàn)在將要看到的那樣。

2. Vividness bias and emotional appeal
In his UN speech, Netanyahu portrayed the conduct of the Hamas combatants in the following climactic sequence: “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.”

2. 生動性偏見和情感訴求
內(nèi)塔尼亞胡在聯(lián)合國的演講中，用以下高潮部分描述了哈馬斯武裝分子的行為：“他們殘忍地殺害了 1200 人。他們強奸并肢解婦女。他們斬首男人。他們活活燒死嬰兒。他們活活燒死整個家庭——嬰兒、兒童、父母、祖父母。這似乎讓人想起了納粹大屠殺。”

This passage is evidence of vividness bias coupled with repeated emotional appeal. Vividness bias, an instance of sextive attention, is the tendency of people to overemphasize stark features at the expense of neglecting less salient aspects. For example, a spectacular plane crash, costing the lives of several hundred people, usually draws more attention than the dry statistic of over 480,000 people dying from smoking every year in the US alone. Due to vividness bias, coupled with strong emotional intensity, the plane crash is likely to lead to frantic efforts to find its cause and prevent similar occurrences, while the larger problem of smoking is left lingering in the background. In both cases, proactive preventive measures are often neglected. After all, the tombstone bias, which is very prent in the airline industry, implies that determined large-scale overhauls only occur as a reaction to the actual deaths of people.

這段話是生動性偏見與反復的情感訴求相結(jié)合的證據(jù)。生動性偏見是選擇性注意的一個例子，指的是人們傾向于過分強調(diào)鮮明的特征，而忽略不那么突出的方面。例如，一次造成數(shù)百人死亡的驚人空難通常比每年僅在美國就有超過 480000 人因吸煙而死亡的枯燥統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)更能引起人們的關注。由于逼真性偏見，加上強烈的情感強度，這起飛機失事很可能會引發(fā)人們瘋狂地尋找原因，防止類似事件再次發(fā)生，而吸煙這一更大的問題卻仍被擱置一邊。在這兩種情況下，主動預防措施往往被忽視。畢竟，航空業(yè)非常普遍的墓碑偏差意味著，只有在實際有人死亡后，才會下定決心進行大規(guī)模整改。

The use of emotion-laden metaphors can strengthen vividness. For example, Netanyahu stated: “Hamas kidnapped 251 people from dozens of different countries, dragging them into the dungeons of Gaza.” The term “dungeon,” which conjures up dark images of the supposedly cruel Middle Ages, together with the term “the underground terrorist hell of Hamas” used in another section of the prime minister’s speech, are also instances of emotionally inflaming hyperbolism. In fact, former hostages reported after their release that they had been kept in flats – in locations that supposedly were more secure than the dwelling places of most Palestinian civilians, many of whom were killed even in zones that the Israeli army had designated as “safe.”

運用充滿情感的比喻可以增強生動性。例如，內(nèi)塔尼亞胡說：“哈馬斯綁架了來自幾十個國家的251人，把他們拖進加沙的地牢?！薄暗乩巍币辉~使人聯(lián)想到殘酷的中世紀的黑暗景象，總理講話中另一部分使用的“哈馬斯的地下恐怖地獄”一詞也都是煽動情緒的夸張用法。事實上，前人質(zhì)在獲釋后報告說，他們被關押在公寓里 — — 這些地方據(jù)稱比大多數(shù)巴勒斯坦平民的住所更安全，其中許多人甚至在以色列軍隊指定的“安全”區(qū)域被殺害。

Moreover, Netanyahu brought people who had been affected by Hamas’ incursion with him to the UN, thus using the method of personalization, which tends to increase vividness, contrasting with the mere statistic of over 40,000 Palestinians (and counting) killed by Israel. At the same time, Palestinians were collectively called “murderous monsters,” an instance of dehumanization coupled with emotional appeal and a fallacy of composition, extending a perceived attribute of individual group members to an entire class of people. In Israel’s case, the accentuated vividness and emotionality reinforced the threat bias and urge to take massive action. It also swayed decision makers from the “collective” West to support or at least accept Israel’s aggressive stance. As a consequence, its representatives even condoned Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant’s radical and incendiary statement that Palestinians are “human animals” and his decision to impose a complete siege on Gaza, completely closing it off from basic necessities without which survival is impossible. They also acquiesced in Israel’s army prohibiting rescue workers in Lebanon from coming to the aid of victims of Israeli bombing attacks trapped in rubble and threatening to bomb the helpers in case of non-compliance.

而且，內(nèi)塔尼亞胡還把受到哈馬斯入侵影響的人們帶到了聯(lián)合國，這樣就采用了個人化的方式，這往往會增加生動性，與以色列殺害了40,000多名巴勒斯坦人（并且還在增加）的統(tǒng)計數(shù)字形成鮮明對比。與此同時，巴勒斯坦人被統(tǒng)稱為“殺人惡魔”，這是非人化與情感訴求相結(jié)合的例子，是一種合成謬誤，將個人群體成員的感知屬性擴展到整個階層。在以色列的案例中，這種強調(diào)的生動性和情感性強化了威脅偏見和采取大規(guī)模行動的沖動。
這也促使“西方”的決策者支持或至少接受以色列的侵略立場。結(jié)果，西方代表甚至縱容以色列國防部長約阿夫·加蘭特發(fā)表激進且煽動性的言論，稱巴勒斯坦人是“人類動物”，并縱容他決定全面封鎖加沙，完全切斷加沙人民的基本生活必需品供應，否則加沙人民就無法生存。他們還默許以色列軍隊禁止黎巴嫩救援人員前往援助被困在廢墟中的以色列轟炸受害者，并威脅稱，若救援人員不遵守規(guī)定，就將對其實施轟炸。

3. Faulty analogy
The above passage related to the victims of Hamas is also an example of the fallacy of drawing a false analogy. The claim that the local incursion on October 7, 2023 is analogous to the Holocaust contradicts the common opinion of leading historians that the Holocaust cost an incomparably larger number of Jewish lives. Again, such distorted thinking reinforces the threat bias.
Moreover, comparing and matching the events on 7 October 2023 with what happened on 11 September 2001 by using the same highly iconic and memorable date format – that is, 7/10 modelled after 9/11 – to refer to the Hamas attack is equally fallacious, given that there are significant differences between the terrorist attack on the US, which was much larger in scale, and the local incursion in Israel.

3. 錯誤的類比
上述與哈馬斯受害者有關的段落也是錯誤類比的一個例子。聲稱 2023 年 10 月 7 日的當?shù)厝肭诸愃朴诖笸罋?，這與主要歷史學家的普遍觀點相矛盾，即大屠殺造成的猶太人生命數(shù)量要多得多。同樣，這種扭曲的思維強化了威脅偏見。
此外，將2023年10月7日發(fā)生的事件與2001年9月11日發(fā)生的事件進行比較和匹配，使用同樣極具標志性和令人難忘的日期格式——即以9/11為藍本的7/10——來指代哈馬斯襲擊事件，同樣是錯誤的，因為針對美國的恐怖襲擊規(guī)模比2001年9月11日大得多，與針對以色列的當?shù)厝肭种g存在顯著差異。

In another memorable passage of his speech, Netanyahu exclaimed: “…we face the same timeless choice that Moses put before the people of Israel thousands of years ago, as we were about to enter the Promised Land. Moses told us that our actions would determine whether we bequeath to future generations a blessing or a curse.” Obviously, it is wrong to compare the situation of Israel after the local Hamas incursion with the epic exodus of an entire people marching out of a foreign country into the “promised land.” Netanyahu also errs by at least implicitly comparing himself to the divinely inspired Prophet Moses who, in contrast to the Israeli politician, fulfilled a command issued by God. However, the analogy may exert a strong impact on the thinking and motivation of the Israeli leader and his followers who, due to strong nationalist sentiments, might feel a strong urge to expand their territory.

在他的另一段令人難忘的演講中，內(nèi)塔尼亞胡感嘆道：“……我們面臨著與摩西數(shù)千年前在以色列人民即將進入應許之地時提出的永恒選擇相同的選擇。摩西告訴我們，我們的行動將決定我們給子孫后代留下的是祝福還是詛咒?！?br /> 顯然，將哈馬斯局部入侵后以色列的處境與整個民族從外國走向“應許之地”的史詩大遷徙相提并論是錯誤的。
內(nèi)塔尼亞胡還犯了一個錯誤，至少含蓄地將自己比作受神啟發(fā)的先知摩西，而與以色列政客不同，摩西履行了上帝的命令。然而，這種類比可能會對以色列領導人及其追隨者的思想和動機產(chǎn)生強烈影響，由于強烈的民族主義情緒，他們可能會有強烈的擴張領土的沖動。

Netanyahu also drew the following faulty analogy in the form of a thought experiment: “Just imagine, for those who say Hamas has to stay, it has to be part of a post-war Gaza—imagine, in a post-war situation after World War II, allowing the defeated Nazis in 1945 to rebuild Germany? It’s inconceivable. It’s ridiculous. It didn’t happen then, and it’s not going to happen now.” Hamas differs in fundamental respects from the National Socialists who attempted to conquer Russia and many other countries. Furthermore, rather ironically, many members of the NSDAP actually did serve in important positions in the newly formed Federal Republic of Germany. Again, the prime minister’s fallacious analogy can exert a powerful impact on thinking and motivation, though, given that Gaza in the endgame is compared to an utterly destroyed Germany, which might direct the mental and physical efforts of Israeli players towards this dire outcome.

內(nèi)塔尼亞胡還以思維實驗的形式做了如下錯誤的類比：“試想一下，對于那些認為哈馬斯必須留下的人來說，它必須是戰(zhàn)后加沙的一部分——試想一下，在二戰(zhàn)后的戰(zhàn)后情況下，允許1945年戰(zhàn)敗的納粹重建德國？這是不可想象的。這太荒謬了。
這種事當時沒有發(fā)生，現(xiàn)在也不會發(fā)生。”哈馬斯與試圖征服俄羅斯和其他許多國家的國家社會主義者有著根本的不同。此外，頗具諷刺意味的是，納粹黨的許多成員實際上在新成立的德意志聯(lián)邦共和國擔任重要職務。然而，總理的這種錯誤類比可能會對思維和動機產(chǎn)生強大的影響，因為在游戲的最后階段，加沙被比作一個被徹底摧毀的德國，這可能會引導以色列玩家的精神和體力努力走向這一可怕的結(jié)果。

4. Escalation, closure, and bifurcation bias
I coined the term “gambler’s dilemma” (Published in Performance Journal, 2 (July 3, 2009, p. 50-59) to describe the difficult choice between the two undesirable options of (a) stopping on a successful path and subsequently being haunted by the question whether you stopped too early and (b) adopting the behavior of a prototypical gambler, continuing after a blinding streak of successes until you finally lose everything. Put in a nutshell, you only know the limit once you have overreached. Alas, “stop” appears to be the hardest word for many helmsmen!

4. 升級、結(jié)束和分歧偏見
我創(chuàng)造了“賭徒困境”一詞（發(fā)表于《績效期刊》第 2 期（2009 年 7 月 3 日，第 50-59 頁），以描述在兩個不可取的選擇之間的艱難選擇：（a）在成功的道路上停下來，隨后被是否過早停下來的問題所困擾；（b）采取典型賭徒的行為，在連續(xù)獲得令人眼花繚亂的成功后繼續(xù)前進，直到最終失去一切。簡而言之，只有當你超越極限時，你才會知道極限。唉，“停止”似乎是許多舵手最難的詞！

Not surprisingly, faced with such a dilemma, many movers and shakers tend to escalate their commitments. This pattern often yields pernicious results, since it is a grave mistake to conjecture that doing more of what you believe has caused your success necessarily will bring about further successes. Escalation can be due to perceptional bias, whereby decision makers, in a tunnel vision, possibly reinforced by groupthink, observe more positive data than negative signals and, in their thinking, focus only on the positive aspects. Moreover, they are often driven by loss-avoidance bias, fearing to forego what they have already invested. Furthermore, impression-managing helmsmen do not want to write off such sunk costs, since they do not want to be seen as failures in the eyes of others and are eager to avoid internal and collective cognitive dissonance from apparent inconsistency. Finally, escalation can result from movers and shakers engaging in irrational competition with opponents, in which all parties are bound to lose.

面對這樣的困境，許多大人物往往會加大承諾，這并不令人意外。這種模式往往會帶來有害的后果，因為如果你認為做更多能讓你成功的事情就一定會帶來更多成功，那你就大錯特錯了。升級可能是由于感知偏差造成的，決策者在狹隘的視野中（可能受到群體思維的影響），觀察到的積極數(shù)據(jù)比消極信號多，并且在思考中只關注積極方面。此外，他們往往受到損失規(guī)避偏差的驅(qū)使，害怕放棄已經(jīng)投入的資金。此外，管理印象的掌舵人不想放棄這些沉沒成本，因為他們不想在別人眼中被視為失敗者，并渴望避免因明顯的不一致而導致內(nèi)部和集體認知失調(diào)。最后，推動者與對手進行非理性競爭可能會導致升級，而各方注定都會失敗。

The tendency to continue gambling and escalate commitments is worsened by closure bias – the need, urge and desire to reach completeness and arrive at an end point at which an uncertain and ambiguous situation has given way to certainty and clarity, such as the knowledge that no opportunities have been missed. Many advertisers are exploiting closure bias by offering solutions that allegedly are “100 percent” effective. Alas, closure often proves to be a myth, since it is difficult to achieve it and even after it has been reached, the final outcome might not prove satisfactory.

結(jié)束偏見加劇了繼續(xù)賭博和增加承諾的傾向——需要、沖動和渴望達到完整性并到達一個終點，在此終點，不確定和模糊的情況已經(jīng)讓位于確定性和清晰性，例如知道沒有錯過任何機會。許多廣告商利用了結(jié)束偏見，提供所謂“100%”有效的解決方案。可惜，結(jié)束往往被證明是一個神話，因為它很難實現(xiàn)，即使實現(xiàn)了，最終結(jié)果也可能不令人滿意。

Obviously, Prime Minister Netanyahu is escalating commitments, exponentially increasing the number of fronts on which Israel is fighting and the intensity of combat on each front. Clearly, he wants to demonstrate “steady leadership,” an impression that would be destroyed by changing course. He also strives for closure, as evidenced by the following passage from his UN speech related to the attempt to free all hostages held by Hamas: “We will not spare that effort until this holy mission is accomplished.” Elsewhere he stated: “I want to assure you, we will not rest until the remaining hostages are brought home too, and some of their family members are here with us today… we remain focused on our sacred mission: bringing our hostages home, and we will not stop until that mission is complete” (emphasis added by author).

顯然，內(nèi)塔尼亞胡總理正在加大承諾，成倍增加以色列的作戰(zhàn)戰(zhàn)線數(shù)量和每條戰(zhàn)線的戰(zhàn)斗強度。顯然，他想展示“穩(wěn)健的領導力”，而改變路線會破壞這種印象。他還力求達成和解，這一點從他在聯(lián)合國關于試圖釋放所有被哈馬斯劫持的人質(zhì)的講話中的一段話就可以看出：“我們將不遺余力地努力，直到完成這一神圣的使命?！彼谄渌胤奖硎荆骸拔蚁胂蚰銈儽ＷC，我們不會休息，直到剩余的人質(zhì)也被帶回家，他們的一些家人今天也和我們在一起……我們?nèi)匀粚Ｗ⒂谖覀兊纳袷ナ姑簩⑷速|(zhì)帶回家，我們不會停下來，直到完成這一使命”。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


In view of this ambitious obxtive of returning all hostages – alive or dead – to Israel coupled with the urge for closure, Israel can possibly continue its war against several neighbors for a very long time, since even if there is only one hostage unaccounted for or if the remains of only one hostage have not been returned to Israel, the mission has not been completed and therefore needs to be continued.
Finally, framing the mission as being holy and sacred, which here are “magical words” that cannot be reduced to concrete measurable things and preclude refutation at the mythical level chosen by the speaker, as if by supernatural force transforms the bleak realities of war into a noble enterprise.

鑒于這一將所有人質(zhì)（無論是活著的還是死去的）送回以色列的雄心勃勃的目標，再加上結(jié)束戰(zhàn)爭的迫切愿望，以色列可能會長期繼續(xù)與幾個鄰國的戰(zhàn)爭，因為即使只有一名人質(zhì)下落不明，或者只有一名人質(zhì)的遺體尚未送回以色列，任務也沒有完成，因此需要繼續(xù)下去。
最后，將使命描述為神圣的，這些是“神奇的詞語”，無法簡化為具體的可衡量的事物，也無法在演講者選擇的神話層面上進行反駁，仿佛超自然的力量將戰(zhàn)爭的慘淡現(xiàn)實轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橐豁棾绺叩氖聵I(yè)。

The tendency to opt for extremes can be reinforced by bifurcated thinking, which is distorted by the “either-or” bias. Succumbing to oversimplification, overgeneralization and exaggeration, such reasoning excludes viable alternative options, such as more moderate solutions.

偏向極端的傾向會因二元思維而加劇，這種思維因“非此即彼”的偏見而扭曲。這種推理過于簡單化、過于籠統(tǒng)和夸張，排除了可行的替代方案，例如更為溫和的解決方案。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


Netanyahu clearly fell prey to black-and-white thinking, as will become obvious from his following message, which he reinforced visually by maps of blessing (“good” Israel and its allies) and curse (an alleged arc of terror, including “evil” Iran and its proxies): “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.” Clearly, a nuanced middle position between the qualifiers of “good” and “evil” (such as the acknowledgment that all human actors have good and bad traits and are capable of noble and ignoble acts) and a synthesis reached as a product of dialectical reasoning (such as the fruitful coexistence of a secular Israel and theocratic Iran, interacting in a mutually enriching manner and both bringing blessings to the entire world), does not form part of Netanyahu’s bifurcated world view.

內(nèi)塔尼亞胡顯然陷入了非黑即白的思維，這一點從他的下述言論中可以明顯看出，他通過祝福（“好的”以色列及其盟友）和詛咒（所謂的恐怖之弧，包括“邪惡的”伊朗及其代理人）的地圖在視覺上強化了這種思維：“當以色列在七條戰(zhàn)線上抵抗伊朗時，祝福與詛咒之間的界限再清晰不過了……在這場正義與邪惡的戰(zhàn)斗中，絕不能含糊其辭。”
顯然，在“善”與“惡”的限定詞之間的微妙中間立場（比如承認所有人類行為者都有善與惡的品質(zhì)，都能夠做出高尚和卑鄙的行為）與通過辯證推理而達成的綜合（比如世俗的以色列與神權的伊朗富有成效的共存，相互促進，給整個世界帶來福祉）并不屬于內(nèi)塔尼亞胡分裂的世界觀。