|
|
|
Jewish World Review March 14, 2001 / 19 Adar, 5761
 |
http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
NEARLY a half year's sustained violence against Israel has left
the Palestinian Authority (PA) economically destitute.
Per capita income has fallen by about one-third, from
$2,000 to $1,400.
The population living below the poverty line has gone up by
50 percent.
Unemployment has gone up four-fold, from 11 to 45
percent. Recipients of
U.N. aid to alleviate hardship has increased tenfold, from
8.5 percent to 85
percent.
U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk finds that the
Palestinian economy
"is on the brink of collapse." A United Nations source goes
further,
predicting that if nothing is done to improve the economic
situation, the PA
itself "could collapse by the end of March."
To prevent this, Israel is being pressed from all sides, in
U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell's words, to "lift the siege."
The assumption behind this pressure, as explained by
London's Independent
newspaper, is that economic problems are causing the PA
territories to slide
into an anarchy that undercuts Yasir Arafat's ability to
negotiate with the
Israelis "over restoring calm."
Implicitly, those calling on Israel to ease off the economic
pressure are
saying that no matter what the PA does -- break its word,
incite hatred,
sponsor a campaign of violence -- Israel's enlightened
self-interest requires
it to assure that Palestinians economically fare decently.
This, to put it mildly, is a highly original argument.
When the United Nations had a problem with Rhodesia,
South Africa, and
Libya, it pursued exactly the opposite approach ànd imposed
an embargo to
cripple those countries economically. Similar embargoes
remain in effect on
Iraq and Afghanistan. In each case, the goals are multiple:
weaken the
military machine, punish the leadership, demoralize the
regime's supporters,
turn the population against its rulers.
The U.S. government uses the same tactics; note that
generations-old
embargoes remain in place on Cuba and North Korea.
Nor is this anything new, for conflict has always had an
economic angle.
Ancient armies cut supply routes. Medieval cities were
starved into
submission. Two centuries ago, during the Napoleonic
wars, the British Navy
established a naval blocade to cut France off from supplies.
World Wars I
and II witnessed extensive use of economic deprivation.
What Israel is doing -- holding tax monies, denying entry to
laborers, and
restricting movement -- fits into an ancient, sensible, and
somewhat effective
method of warfare. Why, then, is it expected to do
otherwise?
The reason, ironically, has little to do with the United
Nations or United
States and much to do with Israelis themselves. They
developed the "new
Middle East" notion (which others now echo) that Israel's
long-term welfare
and security lies not in depriving its enemies of resources but
in helping
them develop their economies.
This, the American analyst Patrick Clawson writes, is "a
vision of the
Middle East that looks for all the world like the French plan
for Europe
after World War II: use economic cooperation as the
starting point for
cementing ties and reconciling peoples, with the goal being
a common market
that in turn leads to close political ties."
But Germans were incorporated into the French vision, it
bears noting,
not while Hitler ruled but after the Nazi defeat. The French
plan built up
the former enemy only after he was crushed, acknowledged
his errors, and had
a totally new government. By similar token, American aid
packages will flow
to Iraq only when Saddam Husayn is history.
In contrast, the "new Middle East" idea offered economic
help even before
the war is over. It is tantamount to sending the enemy
resources while
fighting is still underway - not a hugely bright idea so long
as, in Efraim
Inbar's words, "Arafat and his coterie are part of the
problem and not [part]
of the solution."
Accordingly, the strengthening of Arafat will hardly
"restore calm."
Rather, it will provide him with the resources for a bigger
arsenal and a
more long-lasting intifada.
Until Palestinians do give up their war against Israel, they
need to be
shown that aggression carries a heavy price. The higher that
price,
experience shows, the sooner they are likely to give up their
hostile ways.
Therefore, all who hope for a resolution of the Palestinian
problem
should urge the Sharon government to squeeze the PA just as
hard as it can.
Ironically, that is in the long-term interests of everyone,
including the
Palestinians
By Daniel Pipes
JWR contributor Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and the author of several books, most recently Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes from. Let him know what you think by clicking here.
