The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Economic relief is not a strategic lever

2019-12-16T23:47:11.252Z


Dan shifts


Improving the economy sometimes helps as one of the tools to calm the territory and soften the conflict. It is easy to confuse the targeted utility of this device with the assumption that it can be transformed, at a high dose of the same limited means, into a behavior-modifying lever. Those who make a distinction between the two in Israeli-Arab relations have not learned much from history.

In the West Bank, the combination of "defensive wall" trauma, complete military control, the violent maintenance of this operation's achievements and relative economic well-being have been successful for a decade and a half. Under conditions of vigorous and ongoing oppression of violence, and in a population whose suffering capacity is limited, economic improvement does indeed have a positive and important contribution.

In Gaza, not all of these conditions are met: it does not (and is good to have) complete control of the territory and does not have constant maintenance, which punishes immediately and severely damages any damage to Israel. It has another society, which does not at all try to secure a better future for its construction, and another leadership, whose right to exist is a violent and constant struggle for the very existence of Israel. These have spent the vast majority of billions of dollars entering the Strip since the disengagement, investing them in missiles and tunnels rather than alleviating suffering and building the company. Recently, even Abu Mazen risked essential Western aid and transfers from millions of Israelis, and cut the salaries of PA workers to keep generous payments to terrorists and their families.

The harsh Israeli response from Gaza, because of the (justified) need to focus on the infinitely severe threat from Iran in the northern arena, taught the Gazans that Israel can be severely harmed in Israel's routine without paying an unbearable price by their standards. They have also learned for many years that Europe and Israel are more concerned about a humanitarian disaster that will harm Gaza's children than their parents. They have learned from their experience that Israel and the international community are ready to provide them with food, medicine, medical care and even millions of dollars, fuel and materials that can be used for military purposes, even in the days when they harmed Israel's civilian population. In short - they learned that economic aid would persist, despite ongoing aggression.

In spite of all this, relief in Gaza should be used as a limited instrument in my attempt to cool down the conflict. But an attempt to build on dramatic economic improvement - port, artificial island, airport, opening borders and work permits in Israel - as a strategic lever for achieving long-term calm, has failed as all previous attempts in the last century.

In the 1920s, early Zionists believed that improving the standard of living and quality of life of the Arabs would lessen their opposition to the Zionist enterprise. After the Six Day War, Moshe Dayan and his followers expected that strawberries and open bridges on the Jordan would allow for a peaceful coexistence in Judea and Samaria.

The first intifada erupted after a decade in which the Palestinian economy grew by tens of percent. The "Second Intifada" terror war broke out when the economic situation was better than ever before. Shimon Peres' delusions of the New Middle East have strived to apply the same logic to the entire region.

The Gazans will receive the economic improvement and continue to maintain the prototype of the last few years: violence will soon return as a bargain, when no such claim will be made, or when their preparations for a major confrontation will be harmed. In any case, large-scale and extremely painful operations will have to be taken in Gaza, and this will only lower the level of violence for a short period.

Gaza has no solution, since its sons have no constructive vision beyond violent confrontation, even it is hopeless, and only gives them the sick satisfaction of causing pain and disrupting the life of the Jewish neighbor, who thrives on their noses and their anger.

Dr. Dan Shiftan is the head of the International Security Program at the University of Haifa

For more Dan Shiftan opinions

Source: israelhayom

All news articles on 2019-12-16

You may like

Life/Entertain 2024-02-29T18:05:04.695Z
News/Politics 2024-02-15T16:12:35.260Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.