Israel Should Be Poor; Palestine, Rich
Then We'll Have Peace?
Palestinian poverty is not a plague or an earthquake: it is intimately related to Palestinian government policy.
Last week, before meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pronounced Israel's prosperity an impediment to "peace" with the Palestinians. "I think there is an opportunity [for peace], but for many reasons it's not on the tips of everyone's tongue. People in Israel aren't waking up every day and wondering if tomorrow there will be peace because there is a sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and of prosperity."
He appears to have meant that if Israel is stable, educated, prosperous, free and democratic, these accomplishments have somehow made Israelis feel that peace is not important, not a pressing matter, because, after all, life is pretty good right now.
If that is so, however -- if Israel would place a higher priority on "peace" if it were struggling economically or felt its security to be precarious -- what is one to make of Mr. Kerry's announced determination to raise $4.2 billion in private investment for the West Bank with the aim of increasing Palestinian GDP by 50%, cutting its unemployment by 66% and just about doubling median Palestinian income? But wouldn't such economic benefits make the Palestinians less interested in "peace"? Wouldn't that give them a "sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and of prosperity" that would make them self-satisfied?
Or is that true only of Jews?
But Secretary Kerry appears to have forgotten one general point about investment, and one specific point about the Palestinians.
Generally, in the real world, investment flows organically to places that have an educated population, security, and rule of law that protects intellectual property and the repatriation of profits. It flows, for example, to Israel. Countries or areas with corrupt financial practices, a dictatorial, bifurcated government, multiple security services and an education system that is heavy on ideology and the veneration of violence get less.
Palestinian poverty is not a plague or an earthquake; it is intimately related to Palestinian government policy. Palestinian leadership is at war with the country best able to employ its people – Israel. And Israel does, in fact, periodically employ a great many of them. Kerry promised that his plan would be "bigger, bolder and more ambitious" than anything since the Oslo Accords, so a quick review of post-Oslo Palestinian economics shows that open warfare against Israel is the best predictor of Palestinian economic difficulty. The Oslo timeline, from an article I published in 2012, includes:
- 1992: 115,600 Palestinian workers entered Israel every day.
- 1996: A devastating series of bus bombings, including a particularly gruesome nail bomb in the center of Tel Aviv killed more than 100 Israelis. Palestinian workers in Israel were temporarily reduced to 63,000.
- September 1995-September 2002: Despite the interruption in 1996, Palestinians unemployment decreased from 18.2% to 11%. In mid-2000, 136,000 were working inside Israel -- 40% of all employed Palestinians. Another 5,000 worked in the joint Israeli/Arab run Erez Industrial Zone in the Gaza Strip. Thousands more worked in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in Israeli-owned businesses.
- September 30, 2000: Arafat launched the so-called "second intifada." Begun at the peak of Palestinian economic integration with Israel, the terrorist war killed more than 1,000 Israelis and wounded more than 5,600 (comparable U.S. figures would be 40,000 and 224,000). The number of Palestinians working in Israel was reduced within six months to 55,000. The Erez Industrial Zone was closed after 11 Israelis were killed there.
- 2005: There was no impediment to independent Palestinian economic activity at the time Israel removed its presence from the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian news agency Ma'an waxed ecstatic about economic opportunities, particularly the acquisition of greenhouses and agricultural equipment the Israelis were leaving behind in a $14-million deal brokered by then-World Bank President James Wolfenson.
- 2006: Palestinian looters destroyed the greenhouses almost immediately, and by early 2006, the greenhouses and the $100 million in annual exports to Europe they had produced were gone.
- 2007: Hamas took control of Gaza after a brief and brutal war with Fatah and then escalated the rocket war that had begun in 2001. After more than 9,000 increasingly long-range and accurate rockets and missiles, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in 2008/09.
- 2009: Israel and Egypt instituted the security blockade of Gaza, which the UN has acknowledged to be a legitimate security measure.
Given its history, there is no reason for Mr. Kerry to believe Palestinian leadership is suddenly more interested in economic advancement for its people than in continued warfare against Israel. The Palestinian Authority itself announced Sunday that it will not be "bribed" into recognition of Israel as a legitimate, permanent part of the region. "The Palestinian leadership will not offer political concessions in exchange for economic benefits," Mohammad Mustafa, president of the Palestine Investment Fund economic adviser to Mahmud Abbas wrote in a statement.
If Secretary Kerry thinks that economic dislocation and threats beyond its borders will make Israel cede territory and security to a Palestinian Authority that adamantly places warfare above a settlement and the economic growth that such a settlement could produce, he misunderstands both Israel and the Palestinians.
receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center.
Reader comments on this item
|A good argument - however... [102 words]||Anthony||Jun 1, 2013 12:24|
|The "Palestinians" choose to fight a hopeless battle for a totally audacious and unjust cause [180 words]||Eyal||May 30, 2013 12:32|
|Destruction is their culture. [56 words]||Butch||May 29, 2013 02:16|
|↔ Rattle Rattle [54 words]||Biff H.||May 29, 2013 23:41|
|Mr. Kerry's level of intelligence needs to be questioned. [97 words]||Harb||May 28, 2013 22:50|
Comment on this item
by Louis René Beres
Jihadi violence serves not only to advance the terrorist's delusion of immortality, but also to add, however perversely, an apparent and desperately needed erotic satisfaction, using religion as the justification.
Persuasive promises of immortality -- the desperate hope to live forever -- underlie virtually all major religions.
Washington and Jerusalem should finally address what needs to be done in addition to military remediation -- reinforcing efforts to convince these terrorists that their expected martyrdom is ultimately just an elaborate fiction.
by Gill Gillespie and Shabnam Assadollahi
The aim of the current Iranian regime is clearly to acquire a nuclear weapons capability and to retain as much territory in Iraq as possible under Shia Islamist rule, whatever the human cost. Those aims are also the reason Iran's regime is now trying to intervene in Iraq.
Iran will doubtless be demanding that any cooperation with the West be compensated for by "concessions" permitting its nuclear weapons program.
Involving Iran in Iraq at this point will merely alienate any Sunni allies whose assistance is much needed to defeat IS.
Many people inside Iran have alerted the U.S. Administration for over two years about other industrial facilities being secretly built in Iran and not declared to the International Atomic Energy. So far, all intelligence from within Iran has been wilfully ignored by the Obama Administration.
by Burak Bekdil
The Turkish government "frankly worked" with the al-Nusrah Front, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, along with other terrorist groups.
The Financial Task Force, an international body setting the standards for combating terrorist financing, ruled that Turkey should remain in its "gray list."
While NATO wishes to reinforce its outreach to democracies such as Australia and Japan, Turkey is trying to forge wider partnerships with the Arab world, Russia, China, Central Asia, China, Africa and -- and with a bunch of terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Nusrah Front.
Being NATO's only Muslim member was fine. Being NATO's only Islamist member ideologically attached to the Muslim Brotherhood is quite another thing.
by Samuel Westrop
British politicians seem to be trapped in an endless debate over how to curb both violent and non-violent extremism within the Muslim community.
A truly useful measure might be to end the provision of state funding and legitimacy to terror-linked extremist charities.
by Soeren Kern
"My son and I love life with the beheaders." — British jihadist Sally Jones.
Mujahidah Bint Usama published pictures of herself on Twitter holding a severed head while wearing a white doctor's jacket; alongside it, the message: "Dream job, a terrorist doc."
British female jihadists are now in charge of guarding as many as 3,000 non-Muslim Iraqi women and girls held captive as sex slaves.
"The British women are some of the most zealous in imposing the IS laws in the region. I believe that's why at least four of them have been chosen to join the women police force." — British terrorism analyst Melanie Smith.