网帖翻译

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

以色列在重塑中东秩序的努力中似乎取得了连胜。但强烈的偏见和谬论威胁着它的最终胜利

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.”

被誉为“现实主义之父”的古希腊历史学家修昔底德在《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》中指出，雅典联军“作出判断更多的是基于朦胧的愿望而非坚定的深思熟虑，因为人类习惯于把自己渴望的东西交给不假思索的希望，而把自己不希望的东西用专制的推理抛在一边”。

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.

这种片面的一厢情愿的人类弱点可以部分解释历史上令人震惊的模式：许多强国尽管拥有物质优势，却被看似较弱的敌人打败。事实上，政治家、将军及其士兵常常忘记单场战役和整场战争。至于人们的“内心剧场”，即人们进行内心游戏的地方，有大量科学证据表明，偏见和谬误的结合往往会扭曲各行各业参与者的思维，促使他们做出致命的错误决定。上述盲目的一厢情愿的想法加上对反驳的严厉拒绝 — — 这是一项适得其反的任务，而矛盾的是，理性却被赋予了绝对主权的全部权力 — — 就是这种扭曲思维的一个例子。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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.

以色列国决心通过纯粹的武力，永久性地改变中东地区秩序，使其有利于自己，但它却有可能陷入多个此类危险的思想陷阱，并最终失败，尽管至少表面上看，它的胜算很大。与此同时，这些歪曲事实也促使以美国为首的“西方集体”对以色列日益跨越红线的行为采取了相当宽容的态度，并认为可以永远免受惩罚和豁免。偏见和谬误的存在在战争时期尤其有害，因为许多强大的决策者的判断由于情绪过载和所谓的“必要性”压力而比和平时期更加模糊。

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.

偏见是思维捷径，它帮助人们在海量信息中快速做出决策，但同时也伴随着犯下严重判断错误的风险。谬误是人们在运用理性和论证过程中出现的逻辑错误。重要的是，偏见和谬误可以相互作用；如果在推理和辩论过程中使用偏见，它甚至可能转变为谬误。鉴于这种密切的关系，本文将同时讨论这两种思维陷阱。

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.

基于认知科学的最新见解，我开发了“偏见思维导图”，它综合了最重要的心理启发法，并首次用于分析 2007-2008 年金融危机的根本原因（发表于《卓有成效的管理者》第 11 期（2008 年 12 月 12 日，第 58 页）。通过该分析框架，我们可以系统、全面地分析心理扭曲，揭示问题现象的根本原因，而这些原因通常仅以轶事的形式被捕获。

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.

让我们来看看这组强大的心理扭曲，它们以有害的方式相互强化，结果可能使以色列脱轨，将明显的成功变成真正的失败。还有其他与当前问题相关的重要偏见和谬误，但由于篇幅限制，这里没有涉及。事实证明，以色列总理本杰明·内塔尼亚胡于 2024 年 9 月 27 日在纽约联合国大会上发表的讲话是一个特别丰富的宝库，可以挖掘出扭曲思维的指导样本，因此适合用于有关偏见和谬误的教科书。
虽然由于总理在以色列国内的显赫地位而单独批评他，但应该强调的是，他并不是唯一一个陷入各种思维陷阱的政客，而是在以色列有一个由志同道合的人组成的庞大执政联盟。此外，以色列的许多敌人也同样屈服于各种偏见和谬论，这有助于解释中东地区不断升级的战争——这场悲剧的根源在于被毒害的心灵，需要首先从内心深处进行治愈。

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. 威胁的偏见
将问题视为巨大威胁的决策者往往会投入过多的资源来解决所认为的问题，而往往以失去其他更好的机会为代价。例如，汽车制造商的管理者因为政府强制淘汰内燃机而感到恐慌，往往会在未经证实的“绿色”技术上投入过多的资源，而只要旧的成熟技术还存在，他们就无法利用它从汽车中赚取利润。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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 日哈马斯袭击定居点后，巴勒斯坦军事抵抗组织被视为危及犹太国家生存的生存威胁。内塔尼亚胡总理在联合国演讲的开篇就指出：“我的国家正在为生存而战……我们面对着试图消灭我们的野蛮敌人，我们必须保卫自己。”。顺便说一句，通过将生命归结为抽象概念，以色列政客犯下了物化和实体化的谬误。

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.

由于威胁偏见，以色列领导层在上述“防御”上投入了过多的稀缺资源，决定与敌人展开一场代价高昂的多线战争，以期消灭任何可能出现的反对力量。通过选择全面对抗，它破坏了与西方盟友（特别是美国）的宝贵关系，并无法将资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，有人可能会说，以色列领导人将哈马斯的袭击描绘成一种生存威胁，并利用其他歪曲手段仅仅是为了宣传目的，来影响国内和国际观众。但即使这是真的，政客们也有可能最终相信自己的言论，并因此犯下严重错误。威胁偏见可以与其他偏见相互作用，正如我们现在将要看到的那样。

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. 生动性偏见和情感诉求
内塔尼亚胡在联合国的演讲中，用以下高潮部分描述了哈马斯武装分子的行为：“他们残忍地杀害了 1200 人。他们强奸并肢解妇女。他们斩首男人。他们活活烧死婴儿。他们活活烧死整个家庭——婴儿、儿童、父母、祖父母。这似乎让人想起了纳粹大屠杀。”

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.

这段话是生动性偏见与反复的情感诉求相结合的证据。生动性偏见是选择性注意的一个例子，指的是人们倾向于过分强调鲜明的特征，而忽略不那么突出的方面。例如，一次造成数百人死亡的惊人空难通常比每年仅在美国就有超过 480000 人因吸烟而死亡的枯燥统计数据更能引起人们的关注。由于逼真性偏见，加上强烈的情感强度，这起飞机失事很可能会引发人们疯狂地寻找原因，防止类似事件再次发生，而吸烟这一更大的问题却仍被搁置一边。在这两种情况下，主动预防措施往往被忽视。毕竟，航空业非常普遍的墓碑偏差意味着，只有在实际有人死亡后，才会下定决心进行大规模整改。

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.”

运用充满情感的比喻可以增强生动性。例如，内塔尼亚胡说：“哈马斯绑架了来自几十个国家的251人，把他们拖进加沙的地牢。”“地牢”一词使人联想到残酷的中世纪的黑暗景象，总理讲话中另一部分使用的“哈马斯的地下恐怖地狱”一词也都是煽动情绪的夸张用法。事实上，前人质在获释后报告说，他们被关押在公寓里 — — 这些地方据称比大多数巴勒斯坦平民的住所更安全，其中许多人甚至在以色列军队指定的“安全”区域被杀害。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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，内塔尼亚胡还把受到哈马斯入侵影响的人们带到了联合国，这样就采用了个人化的方式，这往往会增加生动性，与以色列杀害了40,000多名巴勒斯坦人（并且还在增加）的统计数字形成鲜明对比。与此同时，巴勒斯坦人被统称为“杀人恶魔”，这是非人化与情感诉求相结合的例子，是一种合成谬误，将个人群体成员的感知属性扩展到整个阶层。在以色列的案例中，这种强调的生动性和情感性强化了威胁偏见和采取大规模行动的冲动。
这也促使“西方”的决策者支持或至少接受以色列的侵略立场。结果，西方代表甚至纵容以色列国防部长约阿夫·加兰特发表激进且煽动性的言论，称巴勒斯坦人是“人类动物”，并纵容他决定全面封锁加沙，完全切断加沙人民的基本生活必需品供应，否则加沙人民就无法生存。他们还默许以色列军队禁止黎巴嫩救援人员前往援助被困在废墟中的以色列轰炸受害者，并威胁称，若救援人员不遵守规定，就将对其实施轰炸。

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. 错误的类比
上述与哈马斯受害者有关的段落也是错误类比的一个例子。声称 2023 年 10 月 7 日的当地入侵类似于大屠杀，这与主要历史学家的普遍观点相矛盾，即大屠杀造成的犹太人生命数量要多得多。同样，这种扭曲的思维强化了威胁偏见。
此外，将2023年10月7日发生的事件与2001年9月11日发生的事件进行比较和匹配，使用同样极具标志性和令人难忘的日期格式——即以9/11为蓝本的7/10——来指代哈马斯袭击事件，同样是错误的，因为针对美国的恐怖袭击规模比2001年9月11日大得多，与针对以色列的当地入侵之间存在显著差异。

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.

在他的另一段令人难忘的演讲中，内塔尼亚胡感叹道：“……我们面临着与摩西数千年前在以色列人民即将进入应许之地时提出的永恒选择相同的选择。摩西告诉我们，我们的行动将决定我们给子孙后代留下的是祝福还是诅咒。”
显然，将哈马斯局部入侵后以色列的处境与整个民族从外国走向“应许之地”的史诗大迁徙相提并论是错误的。
内塔尼亚胡还犯了一个错误，至少含蓄地将自己比作受神启发的先知摩西，而与以色列政客不同，摩西履行了上帝的命令。然而，这种类比可能会对以色列领导人及其追随者的思想和动机产生强烈影响，由于强烈的民族主义情绪，他们可能会有强烈的扩张领土的冲动。

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.

内塔尼亚胡还以思维实验的形式做了如下错误的类比：“试想一下，对于那些认为哈马斯必须留下的人来说，它必须是战后加沙的一部分——试想一下，在二战后的战后情况下，允许1945年战败的纳粹重建德国？这是不可想象的。这太荒谬了。
这种事当时没有发生，现在也不会发生。”哈马斯与试图征服俄罗斯和其他许多国家的国家社会主义者有着根本的不同。此外，颇具讽刺意味的是，纳粹党的许多成员实际上在新成立的德意志联邦共和国担任重要职务。然而，总理的这种错误类比可能会对思维和动机产生强大的影响，因为在游戏的最后阶段，加沙被比作一个被彻底摧毁的德国，这可能会引导以色列玩家的精神和体力努力走向这一可怕的结果。

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. 升级、结束和分歧偏见
我创造了“赌徒困境”一词（发表于《绩效期刊》第 2 期（2009 年 7 月 3 日，第 50-59 页），以描述在两个不可取的选择之间的艰难选择：（a）在成功的道路上停下来，随后被是否过早停下来的问题所困扰；（b）采取典型赌徒的行为，在连续获得令人眼花缭乱的成功后继续前进，直到最终失去一切。简而言之，只有当你超越极限时，你才会知道极限。唉，“停止”似乎是许多舵手最难的词！

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.

面对这样的困境，许多大人物往往会加大承诺，这并不令人意外。这种模式往往会带来有害的后果，因为如果你认为做更多能让你成功的事情就一定会带来更多成功，那你就大错特错了。升级可能是由于感知偏差造成的，决策者在狭隘的视野中（可能受到群体思维的影响），观察到的积极数据比消极信号多，并且在思考中只关注积极方面。此外，他们往往受到损失规避偏差的驱使，害怕放弃已经投入的资金。此外，管理印象的掌舵人不想放弃这些沉没成本，因为他们不想在别人眼中被视为失败者，并渴望避免因明显的不一致而导致内部和集体认知失调。最后，推动者与对手进行非理性竞争可能会导致升级，而各方注定都会失败。

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.

结束偏见加剧了继续赌博和增加承诺的倾向——需要、冲动和渴望达到完整性并到达一个终点，在此终点，不确定和模糊的情况已经让位于确定性和清晰性，例如知道没有错过任何机会。许多广告商利用了结束偏见，提供所谓“100%”有效的解决方案。可惜，结束往往被证明是一个神话，因为它很难实现，即使实现了，最终结果也可能不令人满意。

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).

显然，内塔尼亚胡总理正在加大承诺，成倍增加以色列的作战战线数量和每条战线的战斗强度。显然，他想展示“稳健的领导力”，而改变路线会破坏这种印象。他还力求达成和解，这一点从他在联合国关于试图释放所有被哈马斯劫持的人质的讲话中的一段话就可以看出：“我们将不遗余力地努力，直到完成这一神圣的使命。”他在其他地方表示：“我想向你们保证，我们不会休息，直到剩余的人质也被带回家，他们的一些家人今天也和我们在一起……我们仍然专注于我们的神圣使命：将人质带回家，我们不会停下来，直到完成这一使命”。

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.

鉴于这一将所有人质（无论是活着的还是死去的）送回以色列的雄心勃勃的目标，再加上结束战争的迫切愿望，以色列可能会长期继续与几个邻国的战争，因为即使只有一名人质下落不明，或者只有一名人质的遗体尚未送回以色列，任务也没有完成，因此需要继续下去。
最后，将使命描述为神圣的，这些是“神奇的词语”，无法简化为具体的可衡量的事物，也无法在演讲者选择的神话层面上进行反驳，仿佛超自然的力量将战争的惨淡现实转变为一项崇高的事业。

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.

偏向极端的倾向会因二元思维而加剧，这种思维因“非此即彼”的偏见而扭曲。这种推理过于简单化、过于笼统和夸张，排除了可行的替代方案，例如更为温和的解决方案。

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.

内塔尼亚胡显然陷入了非黑即白的思维，这一点从他的下述言论中可以明显看出，他通过祝福（“好的”以色列及其盟友）和诅咒（所谓的恐怖之弧，包括“邪恶的”伊朗及其代理人）的地图在视觉上强化了这种思维：“当以色列在七条战线上抵抗伊朗时，祝福与诅咒之间的界限再清晰不过了……在这场正义与邪恶的战斗中，绝不能含糊其辞。”
显然，在“善”与“恶”的限定词之间的微妙中间立场（比如承认所有人类行为者都有善与恶的品质，都能够做出高尚和卑鄙的行为）与通过辩证推理而达成的综合（比如世俗的以色列与神权的伊朗富有成效的共存，相互促进，给整个世界带来福祉）并不属于内塔尼亚胡分裂的世界观。

原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处